Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Tuning Journal for Higher Education (TJHE) is a biannual peer-reviewed journal that publishes in English original research studies and reviews of student-centred learning and outcome-oriented education reforms at university level, with reference to the national, regional, and international environments. Its main objectives are:

  • To provide a platform whereby excellence in teaching, learning and assessment in higher education is promoted through research publications.

  • To serve as a platform for students, teachers, policy makers, administrators, and academics across societies, cultures, professions, and academic disciplines in order to engage in constructive debate on new approaches, methods and tools on teaching, learning and assessment in competence-based and student centred curricula in higher education.

  • To promote research and to subject the tools developed in different higher education projects – including but not limited to Tuning projects – to full academic scrutiny and debate with a view to fostering continuous innovation in higher education and the professional development of teachers and researchers.

 

Section Policies

Full Issue

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Studies

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Forum

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Contributors

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editors’ Acknowledgments

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Guidelines for Authors

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Advisory Editors and Reviewers

Advisory Editors and Reviewers are scholars with demonstrable expertise in the fields and areas covered by the Tuning Journal for Higher Education (TJHE).  

Advisory Editors are appointed by the Editorial Board of TJHE.

Advisory Editors and Reviewers are expected to carry out their editorial duties for TJHE on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the Journal editorial and ethical guidelines. The Tuning Academy and Editorial Board of TJHE gratefully acknowledge their respective contributions.

 

Check of conformity of submissions

The Editor, with the assistance of the Managing Editor and or any other member of the editorial team, makes a first check of conformity of submitted manuscripts with the Journal policy and submission guidelines.

Manuscripts not conforming to the Journal guidelines are returned to authors without evaluation.

 

Advisory Editor’s task 1: Assigning reviewers

The Editor hands each manuscript accepted for review to a member of the Panel of Advisory Editors, who will control the review and revision process of that manuscript.

On her/his turn, the Advisory Editor, who is registered as Section Editor into the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform of Tuning Journal, assigns the received manuscript to two external reviewers. In some cases, the advice of a third reviewer may be sought.

The Advisory Editor may use the names supplied by the authors if she/he is sure the proposed reviewers have both the necessary competence and impartiality. She/he can also choose from the database of the OJS users who have registered as “reviewers” and have duly completed the corresponding form (Registration Form for Reviewers).

Moreover, she/he can identify new reviewers for TJHE. They must have a demonstrable expertise in the disciplines and areas covered by the Journal. In order to start and carry out their review task, they need to register as “reviewers” into the OJS platform, duly completing the above mentioned form (Registration Form for Reviewers).

Under particular circumstances, the Advisory Editor can also act as one of the two reviewers.

Throughout the review process of the assigned manuscript, the Advisory Editor shall keep informed the Editor of any unexpected difficulties and setbacks.

 

Reviewer’s task

The Reviewer shall confirm acceptance of the task within 7 days of receipt of the invitation from the Advisory Editor. If she/he does not, the Advisory Editor will assume that she/he cannot perform the assigned task and will contact another reviewer.

For the evaluation of the assigned manuscript, the Reviewer is required to use the standard Review Form designed for that purpose. Once logged onto the system, the Reviewer will have two options. She/he can complete the online version of the Review Form and submit it online. Alternatively, the Reviewer can download any of the three versions of the Form (PDF: around 650 kB for the empty form; WORD: around 800 kB; or XLSX: around 150 kB), complete it, and upload it to the OJS platform for the attention of the Advisory Editor responsible for the review process of the assigned manuscript.

The possible recommendations that the Reviewer can make (to the Advisory Editor and to the Editor of TJHE) are the following:

I) “Accept Submission”: the manuscript is acceptable as submitted.

II) “Revisions Required”: the manuscript requires minor changes before it can be published.

III) “Resubmit for Review”: the manuscript needs major changes and the revised version will undergo a second and final round of review.

IV) “Decline Submission": the manuscript should not be published in the Journal.

These recommendation options are offered twice for the completion of the review report; first on the Review Form and, second, as part of the OJS default list of recommendation options.  Hence, the Reviewer should be consistent in her/his choices. On the OJS default list of recommendation options, two additional choices are available for the Reviewer: “Submit Elsewhere” and “See Comments”. These comments may be written on the Review Form (there is specific space for confidential comments for the Editor) or on a separate attachment file. In case of a “Submit Elsewhere” recommendation, the Reviewer shall suggest alternative publication venues for the manuscript.

For technical guidance, Advisory Editors and Reviewers are advised to follow the OJS step-by-step manual that has been specifically prepared for helping them to smoothly perform their role and which they will be allowed to access online upon their acceptance of the task. For further assistance, Reviewers should contact the management team of the Journal (tuningjournal@deusto.es).

Advisory Editors and Reviewers are strongly advised not to contact directly the author(s) of the manuscript assigned to them without prior knowledge and authorisation of the Editor.

Reviewers shall submit their reports to the Advisory Editor and the Editor, normally through the OJS platform, within 21 days of receipt of the manuscript for review. The OJS will be sending automatic reminders upon the expiration of the deadline.  

Before submission, Reviewers should ensure that all marked fields of the standard Review Form are duly completed.

Reviewers can upload files such as (offline) completed Review Forms, annotated copies of the reviewed manuscript or any other documents that they deem relevant for the Editor and Author. Technically, the Reviewer can upload any files ONLY before recording her/his recommendation to the Editor (which is the final step).

Advisory Editor’s task 2: Recommendation to the Editor

On the basis of the final review reports, the Advisory Editor communicates to the Editor, in writing and preferably through the Journal OJS platform, one of the following recommendations:

I) “Accept Submission

II) “Revisions Required

III) “Resubmit for Review

IV) Decline Submission

This should be done within 7 days of receipt of the review reports. The Advisory Editor can attach any additional files (other than the Reviewers’ reports) to her/his recommendation to the Editor.

The Editor will contact the authors, again within 7 days of receipt of the recommendation from the Advisory Editor, with her/ his decision and send them copies of the review documents. The Editor will put in copy the Advisory Editor.

 

Final decision and revision work follow-up

The Editor is responsible for taking the final editorial decision. She/he will prepare a decision letter based on the comments of the reviewers and the recommendation of the Advisory Editor, which will be sent by email to the corresponding author with copy to the Advisory Editor, again within 7 days of receipt of the Advisory Editor’s recommendation.

The four possible Editor’s decisions, as foreseen in the OJS platform, are the following:

I) “Accept Submission": acceptance of the manuscript as it stands;

II) "Revisions Required": acceptance of the manuscript after minor revision;

III) "Resubmit for Review": the manuscript needs major changes and a second and final round of review will be required for the revised version.

IV) "Decline Submission": rejection of the manuscript as it stands.

The Editor's decision is final. Decision II) and Decision III) require revision work. In both cases, the Editor will send to the authors comments/suggestions for the author(s) from the reviewers and any annotated copies of the original manuscript. The Editor can add her/his own comments/suggestions. The Editor will ask the author(s) that they make the requested revision or give their reasons for not accepting to do so.

Authors should complete the requested revision and submit a revised version of their manuscript within 14 days (in case of “Revisions Required”) and 21 days (in case of “Resubmit for Review”) of being asked to do so; or they risk their article being rejected or assigned to a later Issue.

The revised version should be sent to the Editor, who will ask the Advisory Editor for a new recommendation. The two external reviewers may also be involved if deemed appropriate, particularly in the case of a “Resubmit for Review” decision.

Within 7 days, the Advisory Editor should decide whether to recommend “Acceptance” or “Rejection” and then she/he should send her/his recommendation to the Editor.

 

Timeline

It is our intention that all non-reviewed manuscripts will be sent back within 21 days of submission acknowledgement and that a first decision letters for manuscripts will be sent within 8 weeks of receipt.

In cases of required revision work, a second editorial decision letter will be sent after assessment of the revised version within 11 weeks (in case of “Revisions Required”) or 12 weeks (in case of “Resubmit for Review”) of initial receipt.

 

Publication Frequency

Tuning Journal for Higher Education (TJHE) is a joint academic publication of the University of Deusto (Spain) and the University of Groningen (Netherlands).

It is published by the University of Deusto on behalf of the two institutions. It appears twice a year, in May and November.

Currently, Journal items are published collectively in both digital and print formats.

The Journal pubolishes both thematic and unsoliticted contributions on competence-based (higher) education.

The first issue of the Journal was published in November 2013. It discussed whether building new profiles and new generations of graduates is the right solution for some of the pressing educational needs of contemporary societies.

The second issue appeared in May 2014 and addressed the theme of competence-based learning from a global perspective.

Subsequent issues have covered various apsects of competence-based education such as curriculum reform for modernising higher education in an increasingly interdependent world, challenges and opportunities for curriculum development, and implementation and impact of Tuning competence-based approach in different parts of the world.

The Editorial Board welcomes contributions, research articles and case studies, on these and other themes related to values, needs, and prosepcts for building appropriate student profiles for a better world.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides full and immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 Its content can be lawfully distributed and reused in any medium only for non-commercial purposes, without prior permission from the Publisher or the author; provided the original publication source is properly acknowledged and any changes to the original work are clearly indicated.

 

Registration Form for Reviewers

Users of the OJS of Tuning Journal who register or have already registered themselves as “reviewers” are kindly requested to complete and submit online the corresponding form in order to help the editorial team in selecting suitable reviewers for the Journal. Each Issue of the Journal will contain an acknowledgement note with the list of reviewers who will have helped with its production.

Registration Form for Reviewers (download)

 

 

Research Article Review Form

As indicated above (under the 'Peer Review Process' section), Reviewers are required to use the standard form designed for the evaluation of research articles. There are two versions of the form: an online version and a downloadable one in PDF, WORD, and XLSX formats. Once logged on the system, the Reviewer has two options. He/she can complete the online version and submit it online. Alternatively, the Reviewer can download the form in any of the three formats, complete it, and upload it to the OJS platform for the attention of Advisory Editor responsible for the review process of the assigned manuscript.

Research Article Review Form (Word) (download)
Research Article Review Form (PDF) (download)
Research Article Review Form (XLSX) (download)

 

TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication

Tuning Journal for Higher Education (TJHE), Tuning Journal in short, is an international journal publishing in English original research studies and reviews in all aspects of competence-based, student-centred, and outcome-oriented education reforms at university level across the globe. It is published by the University of Deusto’s Publications department on behalf of the International Tuning Academy (Tuning Academy, in short), a jointly managed project of the Universities of Deusto (Spain) and Groningen (The Netherlands). The Journal, essentially an open access, online and peer-reviewed publication, is committed to maintain the highest ethical standards. Hence, the involvement of any stakeholder in any function connected with TJHE, including acting as an editor, the reviewing of manuscripts, the management and production of the Journal and the authorship and submission of manuscripts implies acceptance of and adherence to TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication.

* The term Editor(s) as used below refers to Editors, Advisory Editors, Guest Editors, and Editorial Board members when delegated to serve in an editorial capacity.

 

1. Publishers, Managing Board, Editorial Board

1.1. The Editorial Board is appointed by the Tuning Academy in consultation with the Universities of Deusto and Groningen.

1.2. The Editorial Board is responsible for setting policy, appointing the Editor and Advisory Editors of the Journal.

1.3. The Editor is responsible for ensuring that publication policies set by the Editorial Board are carried out.

1.4. The Management Board is appointed by the Tuning Academy in consultation with the Universities of Deusto and Groningen.

1.5. The Managing Board is responsible for the commercial management of the Journal and appointing a Managing Editor.

1.6. The Managing Editor is responsible for ensuring that the commercial policies set by the Management Board are carried out.

1.7. Members of the Editorial or Management Boards or employees and, or members of the Tuning Academy should not intervene in or comment on editorial decisions on individual manuscripts.

2. Editors, Advisory Editors, and Guest Editors.

2.1. Editors of the Journal and Specialist Volumes are expected to carry out editorial duties in a manner consonant with policies set by the Editorial Board.

2.2. The Editor has full responsibility, which he/she may delegate to an Advisory Editor, for editorial and technical decisions on Journal and specialist volume content.

2.3. Editors will give manuscripts unbiased consideration.

2.4. Editors should process manuscripts expeditiously.

2.5. The Editor has sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Manuscripts should have peer review, but the Editor may reject any manuscript for other causes (inappropriate for journal, clearly of poor quality, contents previously published elsewhere, etc.)

2.6. The Editor should not disclose information about submitted manuscripts except to reviewers, Advisory Editors, Editorial Board members, and staff at the University of Deusto’s Publications department. Information about a manuscript may be shared after electronic publication (e.g., news releases or inclusion in a list of contents, etc.).

2.7. Manuscripts submitted by an Editor should be delegated to another Advisory Editor or Editorial Board member.

2.8. An Editor should not handle manuscripts for which there is a real or perceived conflict of interest. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, employer or employee, close friend, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had a past or on-going academic controversy, or situations where the Editor could stand to gain or lose economically or in any other way  by publication or rejection of the manuscript. Editorial responsibility should be delegated to another Editor, Advisory Editor, or Editorial Board member.

2.9. An Editor must not use information, data, theories, or interpretations of submitted manuscript in her/his own work unless that manuscript is in press, published or the author has given permission to do so.

2.10. If an Editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a publication is/are erroneous, he/she should facilitate publication of a report (e.g., correction, follow-up manuscript, or other appropriate means) pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by the original author. The original publication does not disappear from the published record.

3. Authors and Co-authors

3.1. Manuscripts should contain original, new results, data, ideas and/or interpretations not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere (including electronic media and databases).

3.2. Authors should be encouraged to avoid fragmentation of their work where practical, so that the submitted manuscript is as comprehensive and authoritative as possible.

3.3. Authors should inform the Editor of related manuscripts under consideration elsewhere and provide copies if requested.

3.4. Fabrication of data, results, selective reporting of data, theft of intellectual property of others, and plagiarism are unethical practices and unacceptable.

3.5. Information obtained privately (e.g., in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) should be avoided as it is not in the public domain and is thus unverifiable. If considered necessary, it should not be used or reported in a manuscript without explicit permission from the party with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services (e.g., refereeing manuscripts or grant applications) should be treated similarly.

3.6. Manuscripts will contain proper citation of works by others, especially publications of the original hypotheses, ideas, and/or data upon which manuscript is based or addresses.

3.7. Authorship

a)              Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the work reported in a manuscript; others who have contributed should be acknowledged;

b)              Author order should be agreed on by all authors as should any changes in authors and order that occur while the manuscript is under review or revision. Changes in authorship must be submitted to the Editor in writing and must be signed by all authors involved.

c)              Authors and co-authors should review and ensure the accuracy and validity of results prior to submission; co-authors should have opportunity to review manuscript before submission.

3.8. Authors should reveal to the Editor any potential conflict of interest (e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript. The authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would affect the publication of information in a submitted manuscript.

3.9. Authors are encouraged to disclose major funding sources (e.g., government agencies, private foundations, private industry, and universities) for reported research.

4. Reviewers

4.1. A reviewer should disclose real or perceived conflict of interests to the Editor before agreeing to write a review. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, close friend, employer or employee, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had a past or on-going scientific controversy, or situations where the reviewer could stand to gain or lose economically or in any other way  by publication or rejection of the manuscript. The Editor will decide if the conflict is severe enough to prevent the reviewer from writing a fair, objective review.

4.2. A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if she/he feels technically unqualified, if a timely review cannot be done, or if the manuscript is from a competitor with whom the reviewer has had an acrimonious professional relationship or a conflict of interest as defined above (section 4.1).

4.3. Reviewers should be encouraged, but not required, to sign reviews. The Editor will preserve anonymity of reviewers should a reviewer elect to remain anonymous.

4.4. Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential.

4.5. Reviewers must ask the Editor for permission to discuss the paper with others for specific advice, giving names and reasons for such consultation.

4.6. Reviewers must not pass the manuscript to another to carry out the review without permission from the Editor.

4.7. Reviewers must not use information, data, theories, or interpretations of the manuscript in their own work unless that manuscript is in press, published or the author has given permission to do so.

4.8. Reviewers should clearly support and justify the basis for their review analysis.

4.9. Reviewers should alert the Editor to similar manuscripts published or under consideration for publication elsewhere in the event they are aware of such. However, it is the responsibility of the Editor, not the reviewer, to decide on the proper course of action once so informed.

5. Citation Manipulation

5.1. Citation manipulation is considered unethical. Manipulation may include adding citations not contributing to a manuscript’s content or solely aiming at increasing an author’s or a journal’s citations.

6. Sanctions

6.1. Suspected breaches of this policy may be handled by the Editor or may be forwarded to the Editorial Board for review and recommendation.

6.2. If an Editor is determined to have violated the TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication, the matter will be referred to the Editorial Board.

6.3. If an author is determined to have violated the TJHE Ethical Guidelines for Publication, TJHE reserves the right to impose sanctions, which may include restriction from further consideration of accepting the author’s work, retraction of a published paper, or withdrawal of a submitted paper.

Approved by the TJHE Editorial Board and signed on behalf of the Tuning Academy on 16 March 2015 by:

Pablo Beneitone

Director, Tuning Academy (Deusto)

Robert Wagenaar

Director, Tuning Academy (Groningen)

 

 

Acknowledgements

Many sources were consulted in preparation of these ethical guidelines. However, the Editorial Board of the TJHE would like to acknowledge in particular principles outlined in documents by C.O.P.E. (The Committee on Publication Ethics) and the Geological Society of America.

 

TJHE Ethical Guidelines (download)

 

 

Contribution Topics

The Journal welcomes contributions on the following topics:


1. Competence-based learning in higher education

  • Teaching, learning and assessing: theories, policies, and practices
  • Processes, environments/contexts and experiences of (outcome-oriented) learning
  • Subject-specific good practices of teaching, learning and assessment in higher education
  • Generic/General skills and competences in higher education
  • Curriculum design, implementation and enhancement
  • Quality assurance strategies, mechanisms and approaches
  • Integration and support to the implementation of national reform agendas
  • Change management at strategic and degree programme level


2. Academic teachers’ professional development and teaching competences

  • Scholarship of teaching, learning, organising, and assessing
  • Teachers’ professional development strategies and challenges


3. Cooperation and partnership building

  • Higher education profiling and employability in an interdependent world
  • Inter-university cooperation and partnership in higher education
  • University-business cooperation: work-based learning strategies, approaches, methodologies and challenges


4. Emergence and development of higher education areas

  • Internationalisation, sustainability, and local ownership in higher education
  • Recognition challenges and experiences in national and international perspectives
  • Convergence in higher education and related challenges (diversity and local traditions, interculturality, …)
  • Students’ and stakeholders’ participation in higher education
  • Transitions and challenges to and from higher education (admission from secondary education and other learning paths; preparation for the job market)
  • Role of overarching qualifications frameworks and meta-profiles
  • Further emerging topics in the higher education scenario worldwide