Senior Editor: Dr. Kirk Anderson, Faculty of Education, Memorial University
Associate Editor: Dr. Noel Hurley, Faculty of Education, Memorial University
Associate Editor: Dr. Jennifer Godfrey Anderson, Faculty of Education, Memorial University
Associate Editor: Dr. Jan Buley, Faculty of Education, Memorial University
Associate Editor: Prof. Rob Kelly Faculty of Education, Memorial University
Founding Co-editors: Dr. Ishmael Baksh (retired) and Dr. Amarjit Singh (retired)
The Morning Watch was first published by the Faculty of Education at Memorial in the fall of 1973, with Dr. William J. Gushue, Dr. Ishmael J. Baksh and Dr. Amarjit Singh serving as editors.
As Gushue has noted, “The birth of The Morning Watch is explained by the somewhat rapid awakening of the Newfoundland consciousness. Indeed, that fact is reflected in the title of the journal, in that it is the morning watch that precedes a new day -- a new and better era for Newfoundland and its people.” (Society, Culture and Schooling, ed. Amarjit Singh and Ishmael Baksh)
The Morning Watch has a broad scope, addressing questions relating to such matters as curriculum, pedagogy, educational administration, equity, decolonization, Indigenous reconciliation, and educational reform. As such, contributions come from members of the Faculty of Education as well as from faculty in other units of the university, an indeed increasing numbers of national and international sources. In time, The Morning Watch became an important medium for the discussion of educational and social issues and for the dissemination of the results of research conducted in the province.
In the general excitement that marked the approach of the 25th Anniversary of Confederation, Newfoundland culture became more and more the focus of attention in the province. Not surprisingly, then, The Morning Watch at first dealt extensively with issues of Newfoundland culture and education, its article reflecting a variety of disciplines. As we near the Morning Watch’s 50th Anniversary (2023) this excitement continues as we continues as a new editorial team (since 2019) share the founding editors’ legacy.
From the Senior Editor regarding The Morning Watch Journal (MW): Educational and Social Analysis and ‘Peer Review’:
Since its first publication in 1973, the Morning Watch (MW) has had a long and distinguished history. For nearly 50 years we have strived to promote scholarship and research consistent with Memorial University’s mission to support local research and development in education. As such, our focus is on being formative as well as informative as we support writing-scholarship linked to important issues in the scholarship of the educational community in this province and country, and internationally.
Over the years there have been many discussions about the nature of our publication, in particular whether or not we are peer reviewed. As we move forward with a new editorial team (since 2019) a clarification of the nature of peer review in the MW is in order. So, let’s try and set this straight by answering the same question twice.
First: What does peer review mean? Merriam-Webster Learner's defines peer review as “a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted”. Elsevier (2020) argues that the peer review process is essential to “uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them”.
Second: What does peer review mean? The question is repeated but the answer is different. As the reader will know, there are different types of peer review, so the second question really asks what type, or types, best fit the MW? Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community. Quite common in education-focused journals is the double blind peer review, but other types are also valid and widely used. Elsevier (2020) relates that peer review comes in different flavours, and that each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. A key point Elsevier makes is to consult the journal editorial team for clarification of any questions you might have.
I once submitted an article to a journal that had seven blind reviewers. Less extreme and most common types are the single blind review, double-blind review, and open review. Wiley (2020) distinguishes “variations” of the first three: transferable, collaborative, and post publication. The most pertinent for MW purposes, taken from Wiley (2020), are outlined below:
- Single Blind Review: In this type of peer review the author does not know who the reviewers are. This is a common form of peer review.
- Double Blind Review: In this type of peer review neither the author nor the reviewers know the other’s identity. This is also a common form of peer review.
- Open peer review: The identity of the author and the reviewers are known by all participants. There is a growing minority of journals using this form of peer review, but popularity among reviewers is yet to be proven.
- Collaborative review: This covers a broad variety of approaches in which a team of people work together to undertake the review. One format is to have two or more reviewers work together to review the paper, discuss their opinions and submit a unified report. Another approach is to have one or more reviewers collaborate with the author to improve the paper until it reaches a publishable standard.
Using these definitions, we are comfortable with stating that this particular edition of the MW is an open and collaborative peer review publication.
Added to this discussion is the point that the MW is not the intellectual property of any institution or corporate entity, nor does it claim to copyright (copyright remains with the contributor), commercial connection, our cost for usage. It is an open-source journal. We will never state rejection rates as we do not see a link between rigor and high rejection rates. We do strive to support the highest quality and rigorous peer review dissemination research and scholarship through peer-to-peer engagement and support. It is peer- to-peer collaboration that drives quality, and that is our mission.
Yours in scholarship,
Kirk Anderson PhD.
The Morning Watch
Merriam-Webster (2002). Peer review. In Learner’s dictionary. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/peer%20review
Elsevier. (n.d.) What is peer review? https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review
Wiley. (2020). Types of peer review. https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html
Past web page contributors
Lauren Power, Joe Healy, Pam Phillips, Norman Poole, and Rosalie Wilson. Graphics by Kelly Byrne.
Dr. George J. Hache, WEB technical advisor (1997-2005)
A New Platform
In its 44th year of publication the The Morning Watch again found a new home –Memorial University’s Open Journal Systems hosting service. Dr. David Gill facilitated the transition to this new publication platform with Dr. Amarjit Singh during the 2016-2017 academic year. We would also like to thank Patrick Gamsby for his consultation and technical support in the transition to and support in the use of this new platform.