General Submission Information

The following process-level information is intended to help you better understand the context of the journal, prepare manuscripts for submission, and know what to expect during the review and publication process.


Authors

Authors who submit manuscripts to TIA come from all sectors of higher education, including those from the full range of institution types, for-profit and nonprofit entities, and consulting firms, and they represent a diverse array of disciplinary backgrounds and job positions. While many authors are affiliated with centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) and consider educational development their professional home, others are in positions external to CTLs but similarly aligned with the values of TIA and the POD Network. Both new and seasoned authors successfully publish in the journal. You do not need to be a member of the POD Network to publish in TIA.


Audience

The audience for TIA is as eclectic as its authors. While the primary audience tends toward educational development professionals in and affiliated with CTLs, the full audience includes national and international readers as well as faculty, staff, administrators and other individuals and entities focused on instructional, professional, and organizational development in higher education. It is important that authors submitting manuscripts to TIA clearly and intentionally contextualize their work for this audience.


Review & Publication Process

Manuscripts submitted to TIA undergo a rigorous double blind peer-review process. This means neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. Editors know the identities of both parties but never disclose this information.

The following outlines the key steps of the review process:

Step 1: Pre-Review

Once a manuscript is received, it is assigned a primary editor who manages all aspects of the process. As part of the pre-review, the editor ensures the work…

  • is suitable and aligned with the aims and scope of TIA; 
  • is fully blinded, containing no mention of authors’ names and affiliated institutions or other identifiable information and that files contain no identifying metadata;
  • meets the journal’s word count limits;
  • generally adheres to the journal’s style guidelines.

At this point, the primary editor may advance the manuscript to the review stage, return it to the author(s) to address minor problems or concerns, or in some instances issue a desk-reject. A desk-reject indicates that the manuscript is currently unpublishable due to significant issues with organization, clarity, or argument, that it is pitched for the wrong audience, or that it is not well-situated in the literature. All potential desk-rejected manuscripts are read by multiple editors, who must reach consensus prior to rendering this decision.

Step 2: Review

After successful pre-review, the primary editor assigns a minimum of three peer reviewers who have indicated interest and expertise in the subject matter and/or research methodologies. Reviewers are provided a list of review criteria and a template to guide their reviews. They are also asked to make an initial decision using the four decision options: Accept; Minor Revisions; Major Revisions; Reject.

  • Accept indicates a well-developed and -written manuscript suitable for publication as-is following final copyediting.
  • Minor Revisions indicates a solid manuscript that could be improved with slight revision to organization, clarity, argument, and/or other components; this recommendation typically doesn't trigger re-review but may in some instances. 
  • Major Revisions (aka Revise and Resubmit) indicates a manuscript that requires significant revision to organization, clarity, argument, and/or other components; this recommendation automatically triggers re-review. Whenever possible, we invite earlier-round reviewers to re-review manuscripts following authors' revisions since they are best suited to gauge whether the authors sufficiently addressed initial concerns.
  • Reject indicates a manuscript currently unsuitable for publication because, among other things, it lacks organization, clarity, argument, or other components, is pitched for the wrong audience, or is not situated in the literature. Multiple editors read rejected manuscripts and come to consensus before this decision is rendered.

Step 3: Initial Decision

The primary editor reviews all comments and initial recommendations from the peer reviewers, considers reviewers comments in light of their own read of the manuscript, and makes an initial decision using the four decision options described above. In cases where reviews lack detail or conflict, the primary editor might seek additional reviewers or ask other members of the editorial team to review the manuscript. The decision, along with the reviewers’ comments, are shared with the authors.

Step 4: Re-Review (required for Major Revisions)

Once authors revise and resubmit manuscripts requiring Major Revisions, the manuscript, along with the authors’ cover letter detailing revisions, is sent back to the original reviewers whenever possible. In some cases, the editor may solicit additional reviewers. Guided by the authors’ responses to the reviewers’ initial feedback, reviewers consider whether the changes improve the manuscript sufficiently to warrant publication. The editor once again provides feedback to authors and renders a publication decision.

Step 5: Final Decision

After one round of revision and resubmission, the primary editor typically makes a final publication decision. The outcome will be Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, or Reject. None of these decisions require re-review.

Step 6: Copyediting

Manuscripts accepted for publication are then copyedited, approved by the authors, and then published in TIA.


Review & Publication Timeline

The timeline for publishing an article in TIA is highly variable and dependent on several factors not easily predicted. Typical time estimates of each stage of the review and publishing processes are shown in the figure below. In best case scenarios (i.e. the sum of the bolded times in the figure), the total time from submission to publication can be less than 6 months. In more complicated (and typical) scenarios (e.g. revise and resubmit), it can take 12-18 months.

*Additional processes depending on reviewers’ and editors’ recommendations.