Submission and Review Process

The mission of Academic.Writing was to provide information for – and an opportunity for interaction among – scholars interested in writing and speaking across the curriculum (CAC). The journal welcomed contributions of the following kinds:

• articles (both linear and hypertext) on CAC theory, practice, and research
• reviews of publications addressing CAC theory, practice, and research
• papers formerly presented at scholarly conferences but not published elsewhere
• dissertations and masters theses that address communication across the curriculum
• teaching materials and reports of teaching practices related to CAC
• primary research materials collected during CAC program evaluations and research projects
• CAC program proposals, funding proposals, program designs, and program evaluations
• materials used for training seminars of various kinds (e.g., for faculty in specific disciplines, for students)

Review Procedures

All contributions were reviewed by our editorial board and signed reviews were provided to contributors. The identity and affiliation of contributors was concealed from reviewers to the extent the "manuscript" was created to conceal identity and affiliation. Contributions were reviewed using the following procedures:

Articles were reviewed by at least two members of the editorial board. Reviewers provided signed comments on the contribution, recommending (1) acceptance, (2) acceptance with specified revisions, (3) revision and resubmission, or (4) rejection. Decisions to accept or reject an article were based on the quality of the article and its relevance to CAC theory, practice, and/or research.

Unsolicited Reviews were reviewed by the Reviews Editors and one other member of the editorial board. Reviewers will provide signed comments on the contribution, recommending (1) acceptance, (2) acceptance with specified revisions, (3) revision and resubmission, or (4) rejection. Decisions to accept or reject a review were based on the quality of the review and the relevance to CAC theory, practice, and/or research of the publication being reviewed.

Papers Previously Presented at Conferences, But Not Published Elsewhere were reviewed by at least two members of the editorial board. Reviewers will provide signed comments on the contribution, recommending (1) acceptance or (2) rejection. Decisions to accept or reject a paper previously presented at a conference were based on the quality of the contribution and its relevance to CAC theory, practice, and/or research.

Submission Procedures

Contributions could take the form of Web documents in HTML format or electronic manuscripts (Corel WordPerfect, Lotus WordPro, or Microsoft Word preferred). Although it was preferred that contributions submitted in HTML format be coded by the authors, support was provided to authors who were not proficient in coding HTML documents.

Style

When citing print sources, contributions conformed to the guidelines presented in the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA). When citing electronic sources, contributions conformed to the guidelines developed by Academic.Writing Citations Editor, Janice R. Walker. These guidelines were based on the Columbia Guide to Online Style, developed by Janice R. Walker and Todd Taylor and approved by the ACW. Information about the Columbia Guide to Online Style can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/cgos/index.html.

Contributors were encouraged to depart from APA style in one respect: they were asked to provide first names instead of initials for the authors of cited sources.