Over the past 2 years, one of the most frequently posed questions from authors to our editorial team has been how best to go about revising a manuscript that received a revise and resubmit decision. The intent of this editorial is to share publicly what we have been sharing with individual authors to support productive revisions, transforming manuscripts with revise and resubmit decisions into manuscripts that are likely to be accepted for publication.
Tami S. Martin and Amanda L. Miller
Craig J. Cullen and Tami S. Martin
Proving trigonometric identities are some students' least-favorite lessons. For us, those proofs are enjoyable puzzles for which the right algebraic manipulation leads to the desired outcome, but our students did not always find the same satisfaction in untangling those algebraic knots.
Joshua T. Hertel and Tami S. Martin
The November 2013 issue of JRME marks the end to the 44th volume. Looking back on the history of the journal, many things have changed since the first issue was published in January 1970. In particular, the process through which manuscripts are submitted, reviewed, and published has changed greatly. Gone are the days of mailed manuscripts and reviews. As the journal has matured with the field of mathematics education, the standards and expectations for both manuscripts and reviews have also evolved. These standards and expectations are to a great extent influenced by the peer-review process and are thereby linked to the practice of blinding. When submitting a manuscript to JRME, authors must submit both a blinded and an unblinded version. The blinded version is sent to reviewers, and the unblinded version is used by the editorial staff. Although other journals use a single-blind process (reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors) or an open review process (both parties are aware of the others' identities), the JRME review process remains a double-blind process in which neither authors nor reviewers are aware of the others' identities.
Tami S. Martin and William R. Speer
Features, consistent messages, and new components of Mathematics Teaching Today: Improving Practice, Improving Student Learning (NCTM 2007), an updated edition of Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (NCTM 1991). The new book describes aspects of high-quality mathematics teaching; offers a model for observing, supervising, and improving mathematics teaching; and outlines guidelines for the education and continued professional growth of teachers.
Cynthia W. Langrall, Tami S. Martin, Nerida F. Ellerton, Joshua T. Hertel, and Amanda L. Fain
There are many venues for engaging in scholarly discourse about mathematics education, including conferences, webinars, social networking sites, blogs, university classes, and colloquia. Given the dynamic nature of these forums, one might lose sight of the role of academic journals in contributing to scholarly discourse in the field. The integrity of JRME and the high standards to which its publications are held support the notion of the journal as an archive, a means for recording and disseminating knowledge. However, JRME also influences the direction of mathematics education research and contributes to the ongoing discourse of the mathematics education community.
Tami S. Martin, Cheryl A. Hunt, John Lannin, William Leonard Jr., Gerald L. Marshall, and Arsalan Wares
This analysis of the five NSF–funded secondary mathematics curricula describes their alignment with the Process Standards and Content Standards in Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Distinctive features and examples are included.