Example of an Unhelpful Review of an Accepted Paper

EMPIRICAL STUDY

MERGA RESEARCH PAPERS: REVIEWER REPORT FORM

I have reviewed the paper: 
Title: Using manipulatives with adult learners of mathematics
Code: RP42

As a research paper for presentation at MERGA 26 and publication in the conference proceedings,  I recommend that the paper be (delete two):	
ACCEPTED 

Please supply below reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the paper commenting on each of the categories specified below, as appropriate. You may refer to more issues than suggested by the categories if you wish.

Statement of problem/issue and discussion of its significance:
Relevant context and research question.

Literature review and theoretical framework:
Framework is not one I’m familiar with.

Methodology and data analysis (when applicable):
Data analyses appear to be fine.

Discussion:
Good

Conclusions and implications:

General comments including reasons for the recommendation:
Well written.

Minor revision: Notes for editorial team
Please note here any minor revisions that can be completed by the editorial team (e.g., typographical errors, grammatical points, ways in which the paper does not conform to the MERGA layout and presentation guidelines for publication of MERGA papers)
Full stop missing on p.5

Would you like copies of the comments of the other reviewer/s of this paper to be e-mailed to you?
NO

Example of an Unhelpful Review of a Rejected Paper

EMPIRICAL STUDY

MERGA RESEARCH PAPERS: REVIEWER REPORT FORM

I have reviewed the paper: 
Title: Beliefs about Solving Word Problems in Algebra
Code: RP43

As a research paper for presentation at MERGA 26 and publication in the conference proceedings, I recommend that the paper be (delete two):	
REJECTED 

Please supply below reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the paper commenting on each of the categories specified below, as appropriate. You may refer to more issues than suggested by the categories if you wish.

Statement of problem/issue and discussion of its significance:
Unclear

Literature review and theoretical framework:
None here

Methodology and data analysis (when applicable):
Poorly designed and analysed.

Discussion:
Appears to be fine.

Conclusions and implications:
Hard to follow.

General comments including reasons for the recommendation:
Badly written. Lacks clarity.

Minor revision: Notes for editorial team
Please note here any minor revisions that can be completed by the editorial team (e.g., typographical errors, grammatical points, ways in which the paper does not conform to the MERGA layout and presentation guidelines for publication of MERGA papers)

Would you like copies of the comments of the other reviewer/s of this paper to be e-mailed to you?
NO

Example of a Helpful Review of an Accepted Paper

EMPIRICAL STUDY

MERGA RESEARCH PAPERS: REVIEWER REPORT FORM

I have reviewed the paper: 
Title: Learning Fractional Concepts Using the Number Line
Code: ...RP44….

As a research paper for presentation at MERGA 26 and publication in the conference proceedings, I recommend that the paper be (delete two):	
ACCEPTED 

Please supply below reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the paper commenting on each of the categories specified below, as appropriate. You may refer to more issues than suggested by the categories if you wish.

Statement of problem/issue and discussion of its significance:
The context for the investigation, the research issues and their relevance to the field are clearly articulated. 

Literature review and theoretical framework:
This is a small-scale study that builds on prior work by ---- and ---- on the learning of rational number concepts.  The theoretical framework is clearly laid out and provides justification for the choice of research questions and the research methods to explore them. The literature consulted is appropriate but could have been more extensive. However, the gaps in current knowledge were highlighted well.

Methodology and data analysis (when applicable):
The study is primarily descriptive, with ongoing analysis of the data. The descriptions of students’ work, together with the verbal data, are well selected to support the points made by the author, although I would have preferred to see other evidence provided in addition to that here.  

Discussion:
The authors make a clear connection between their analysis of student learning and the theoretical framework used.  The results are clearly presented and the discussion of them is well substantiated by the data.

Conclusions and implications:
The conclusions drawn by the authors are insightful and suitably tentative. The implications for classroom teachers are consistent with the findings presented. I agree that there is a need to replicate this study in other contexts. Have the authors thought about the implications for teacher educators?

General comments including reasons for the recommendation:
For the most part, the report is well written and easy to follow.  Table 1, however, appears to be missing some data (see column 2). The paper is interesting, contains original data, and adds to our understanding of how students learn rational numbers.  The authors are encouraged to see the recent article by ---------  in -------- which would provide an interesting comparison to the work in this paper.  In the presentation, a corrected version of Table 1 should be used.

Minor revision: Notes for editorial team
Please note here any minor revisions that can be completed by the editorial team (e.g., typographical errors, grammatical points, ways in which the paper does not conform to the MERGA layout and presentation guidelines for publication of MERGA papers)
p.2 para 2: “there” should be “their”
level 2 headings should not be in italics

Would you like copies of the comments of the other reviewer/s of this paper to be e-mailed to you?
NO

Example of a Helpful Review of a Rejected Paper

EMPIRICAL STUDY

MERGA RESEARCH PAPERS: REVIEWER REPORT FORM

I have reviewed the paper: 
Title: Interactive learning and mathematical level raising …
Code: RP27

As a research paper for presentation at MERGA 26 and publication in the conference proceedings, I recommend that the paper be (delete two):	
REJECTED 

Please supply below reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the paper commenting on each of the categories specified below, as appropriate. You may refer to more issues than suggested by the categories if you wish.

Statement of problem/issue and discussion of its significance:
The aim of the paper is to show how a particular data set was analysed from different theoretical positions. The authors did not say why it was important to do this research.

Literature review and theoretical framework:
The various theoretical positions are outlined in detail. This is necessary, but needs to be more succinct. As a result of the long theoretical discussion, there was very little room left for the presentation of results and a discussion of them. In the literature review, there was no reference to work in which similar studies have been attempted (e.g., Prior, 1998) and/or no writers mentioned who advocate the need for this kind of work to be undertaken (e.g., Moredon, 2001). Both of these references are cited in full below.
 
Methodology and data analysis (when applicable):
It is not clear exactly what data are being analysed or how the analysis produces the information found in Table 1. One paragraph is given to describing the analysis process. However, all we are told is that in each stage of the analysis is based on a different theory, and that the results are integrated.  How/when/why are they integrated? Actually, it is not clear whether the integration was done or is being proposed—yet this is meant to be the crux of the paper.

Discussion:
Results are presented in Table1 but are not appropriately discussed, other than to explain the bolding and use of italics. It is not at all clear how the columns labelled “A is working” and “B is working” relate to the data in the centre column, or how the authors have interpreted these data. The discussion of the data is superficial. The authors indicate that they will present more detail in the conference presentation – this is not appropriate for a published research report.

Conclusions and implications:
It is not enough to tell readers that no conclusions can be drawn. The conclusions should relate to the aim of the study. In this case, does the use of multiple theoretical perspectives for the various stages of the data analysis provide more useful/informative/relevant/interpretable findings? – at the very least, are there indications that this is the case?

General comments including reasons for the recommendation:
This was not an easy paper to review. The authors have not made good decisions about how to use the eight-page limit wisely. The introductory section contains too much detail, while the methods and results are not presented or discussed sufficiently. 
The content of this paper may be of interest to the MERGA community in the future but not in its current form. The relevance and purpose of the study needs to be more strongly argued and contextualised. There also appeared to be little recognition of the pertinent work of others in this field. As presented here, the paper is not worthy of a place in the proceedings. 

Minor revision: Notes for editorial team
	
Would you like copies of the comments of the other reviewer/s of this paper to be e-mailed to you?
NO

Prior, F. (1998). -------- (full citation)
Moredon, B. (2001), --------- (full citation)

Example of a Helpful Review of an Accepted Paper

NON-EMPIRICAL STUDY

MERGA RESEARCH PAPERS: REVIEWER REPORT FORM

I have reviewed the paper: 
Title: Reflections on reflective primary mathematics teaching practices
Code: RP42

As a research paper for presentation at MERGA 26 and publication in the conference proceedings, I recommend that the paper be (delete two):	
ACCEPTED 

Please supply below reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the paper commenting on each of the categories specified below, as appropriate. You may refer to more issues than suggested by the categories if you wish.

Statement of problem/issue and discussion of its significance:
The focus of this paper, reflective primary mathematics teaching practices, is an important topic to review. The authors develop a constructive case for the need to question whether the positive rhetoric associated with this issue is evident through the research literature in this field.

Literature review and theoretical framework:
The theoretical literature and the research literature presented were extensive and thoroughly synthesised.

Methodology and data analysis (when applicable):
Not applicable

Discussion:
Based on the synthesis of the literature the authors argue strongly that the theoretical foundations for advocating reflective practices appear sound. They  provide extensive evidence to support their contentions that research in the field has been inappropriately theorised. They claim that findings associated with studies investigating mathematics teaching as it takes place in primary classrooms do not conclusively support the outcomes predicted by theory.

Conclusions and implications:
The authors draw several apt and forthright conclusions regarding the two dimensions of the literature they examined. The implications for future research directions were clearly articulated. There was no discussion of implications for teacher education and the teaching profession. Perhaps the authors would like to elaborate further on the implications for these stakeholders in their oral presentations.

General comments including reasons for the recommendation:
The paper was clearly written. The content and the arguments present stimulate thinking on the issue reflective practice, a phenomenon that is assumed to have beneficial outcomes for teachers and students alike and is taken for granted in contemporary educational settings.

Minor revision: Notes for editorial team
Please note here any minor revisions that can be completed by the editorial team (e.g., typographical errors, grammatical points, ways in which the paper does not conform to the MERGA layout and presentation guidelines for publication of MERGA papers)

Missen (2001) is cited in the text but is not found in the reference list. 
Typo in first sentence of last page (their)
apostrophes have been misused (e.g. p.7: students’; p.9 it’s)

Would you like copies of the comments of the other reviewer/s of this paper to be e-mailed to you?
YES

Example of a Helpful Review of a Rejected Paper

NON-EMPIRICAL STUDY

MERGA RESEARCH PAPERS: REVIEWER REPORT FORM

I have reviewed the paper: 
Title: The contributions to mathematics education of Robert K. Dove: A critique
Code: RP43

As a research paper for presentation at MERGA 26 and publication in the conference proceedings, I recommend that the paper be (delete two):	
REJECTED 

Please supply below reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the paper commenting on each of the categories specified below, as appropriate. You may refer to more issues than suggested by the categories if you wish.

Statement of problem/issue and discussion of its significance:
The author does not discuss the context of Dove’s work, nor why a critique of this body of research is significant at this time.

Literature review and theoretical framework:
Using a post-structural perspective, the author has reviewed only a limited selection of Dove’s work. The rationale for choices made is not clear. It is also not clear why Dove’s first seminal paper, Doing Arithmetic (Dove, 1956), was omitted from the review.

Methodology and data analysis (when applicable):
Not applicable

Discussion:
The analysis of Dove’s work was biased by the selective studies that were included in the review. The author makes dubious claims that appear to reflect strongly held personal convictions, rather than providing a synthesising Dove’s research and making statements that could be supported and substantiated by the literature reviewed.

Conclusions and implications:
As a consequence of the inadequate coverage of Dove’s work, the conclusions drawn, whilst defensibly within a post-structural context, were inaccurate. The implications drawn appear to be consistent with strongly held personal views – an inappropriate form of argument under the rubric of academic “critique”. 

General comments including reasons for the recommendation:
The writing style is alienating and many key terms were not defined. The paper is riddled with typographical errors suggesting that it was not carefully edited prior to submission. Many of these errors were avoidable - the spell- and grammar-checking facilities of the word-processing package could have been used. In future, the author should ask a colleague to read through an early draft of a paper to provide constructive feedback; the standard of the product is likely to improve.

Minor revision: Notes for editorial team
Please note here any minor revisions that can be completed by the editorial team (e.g., typographical errors, grammatical points, ways in which the paper does not conform to the MERGA layout and presentation guidelines for publication of MERGA papers)

Would you like copies of the comments of the other reviewer/s of this paper to be e-mailed to you?
YES