MONOGRAPHS OF THE SOCIETY FOR RESEARCH IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Consultant's Recommendation to the Editor

  Consultant:                                                     Date Sent:                                        Date Due:

Manuscript Number Title:

  General Guidelines for Evaluation of Manuscript: Following the policy established by Robert Sears more than a quarter of a century ago, ideally a MONOGRAPH "should start a new field or put an end to an old one. It should be one that a lot of developmentalists care about and want to see some data on.  A monograph should add a building block on which other researchers can step, not just an "i" dotting or "t" crossing of the latest fad. . ." (CD, 1971, 42, 340-343).  In other words, the work should be judged to be of cutting-edge importance to the field.  In assessing the "fit" of a particular submission to this ideal, the following are typically among the relevant questions to bear in mind:  Is the topic, the theory, the data set, of sufficient interest/importance to warrant being one of three – four Monographs that are published per year?  Does the work reflect a conceptually important integration of theory and empirical findings?  Are the questions, methods, and findings presented so that their import will be clearly understandable to a broad spectrum of scholars interested in developmental issues?  Is the research design appropriate, and are the data and their analyses reliable?  Is the review of theories and findings that motivate the current study accurate and well thought through?  Are the conclusions well supported by the data, and are possible alternative formulations sufficiently considered?

A Monograph cannot be considered simply a larger version of other archival journal articles.  For Monographs, the conceptual contribution must weigh as heavily as the empirical contribution.  Here also -- as contrasted with other publications where results are often presented without a conceptual frame that gives the data meaning -- the story line must carry through the whole manuscript.  In other words, conceptual importance and conceptual coherence matter.

Formal Recommendation to the Editor: Please do not include a publication recommendation in the written review.  Please send your publication recommendation separately.  

(The following categories are usually used in the confidential recommendation to the Editor):

ACCEPT (although it may need clarifications and polishing, the work is basically sound and conceptually interesting)

ACCEPT CONDITIONALLY (some relatively serious revision will be required; however, it seems clear that the required modifications can be accomplished, and that if the author follows the recommendations, the work will meet standards for acceptance)

REVISE-RESUBMIT (the work shows promise; however, radical revision would be necessary to make its potential evident.  Final decision must remain uncertain until after the revision is evaluated).

REJECT (the work is too flawed and/or its contribution is not significant enough to warrant publication as an SRCD Monograph.  Note that even in such a case, a thoughtfully argued critique can make an invaluable contribution in pointing the author towards more productive future directions or other publication outlets).