RUNNING HEAD: XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 1

RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT:
XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW PROCESSES
ERICA WEBB
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 2

Abstract
With the state of the Xchanges Journal already in flux as a result of the recent move from
New Mexico Tech to the University of New Mexico, the staff of the journal is optimally poised
to make changes to the way the journal is run. As part of this analysis, and with a focus on
growing not only the reach of the journal, but its functionality as an instructional tool as well, I
reviewed the submission and review processes used. I compared the processes already in use
against the processes used by comparable electronic journals in an attempt to ascertain the
current best practices for the genre. Additionally, I researched the submission and review
processes of traditional journals as electronic journals are still a relatively new format in the
world of academic publishing. I considered both qualitative/anecdotal data and quantitative data
provided by Editor Dr. Julianne Newmark.
Ultimately, Xchanges submission and review processes proved similar to that of other
journals, both traditional and online. However, one of the largest issues facing Xchanges is a lack
of consistency and transparency in the submission and review processes. I recommend that
Xchanges make minor changes to the submission and review requirements to clarify the calls for
submission and help lead the journal into a space where it can function as a pedagogical
resource. The recommendations include providing additional requirements intended to make
instructors a part of the submission process, publishing reviewer guidelines, and publishing
journal submission and submission rates. These changes will streamline the process for journal
staff, authors seeking publication, and instructors who want to use the journal as a pedagogical
resource.
Keywords: refereed, submission, review, guidelines

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 3

Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5
Results & Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 6
Question 1: What are Xchanges current submission guidelines? ............................................... 6
Question 2: What are the industry standards for academic journal submission guidelines?..... 6
Question 3: What are the industry standards for online academic journal submission
guidelines? .................................................................................................................................. 8
Question 4: What are Xchanges current review procedures? .................................................... 9
Question 5: What are the industry standards for online academic journal review procedures? 9
Question 6: Quantitatively, what does Xchanges submission and review data say about the
efficiency of the journals current guidelines and procedures? ................................................. 10
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 11
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 12
Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Screenshot of one of three pages of submission guidelines for Technical
Communication Quarterly..7
Figure 2: Submission Form for Technical Communication Quarterly...8
Figure 3: Table of Accepted, Rejected and Not Reviewed Submissions..11
Figure 4: Submission Acceptance Rates of "The Big Three"...12

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 4

INTRODUCTION
While online academic journals have existed in some capacity for 20 years, and Xchanges
Journal through its various iterations has existed online since 2001, the general academic
community still lacks awareness of both the existence of this (and similar) journals. Xchanges
provides online, scholarly access to both undergraduate and graduate publications. They publish
both traditional texts and webtexts. The journal began as an American Studies journal at Wayne
State University and evolved into a publication that focuses on the fields of Writing/Rhetoric,
Technical Communication/Writing, and Writing across the Curriculum, and English Education.
As a refereed publication the journal aims to publish twice year with one volume focusing on
undergraduate original research and the other graduate-level work. Personal correspondence with
Dr. Newmark during the research for this project revealed that her ultimate goal for the journal is
not only to provide a publication outlet for undergraduate and graduate level students, but also
for the journal to serve as an interactive pedagogical resource for instructors of writing, rhetoric,
and technical communication at schools across the country.
Online academic journals, especially those working with webtext and multimodal
publications, have gained distinction in recent years. Kairos and theJUMP, two publications
described by Dr. Newmark as comparable in both goal and content, have been on the scene since
1996 and 2010 respectively. Though there are distinct differences between these journals
(differences in content form rather than subject) the ultimate goal of all three journals to
publish quality undergraduate and graduate work in the specific fields mentioned above and to
serve as a resource and teaching tool for writing disciplines is basically the same. However,
both Kairos and theJUMP appear to have found firmer footing than Xchanges when considering
submission rates and publication consistency.
In order for Xchanges to accomplish its publication and pedagogical goals, it must
continue to receive and publish quality undergraduate and graduate submissions in its fields of
focus. Currently the journal faces a variety of challenges related to submission and publication
consistency. Staffing, funding, and technological issues combined to impede the ability of
journal staff, namely founder and Editor Dr. Newmark, from turning Xchanges into cornerstone
of the open-access, online journal world. Today, the journal struggles to increase the number and
consistency/quality of its submissions, and to establish a consistent publication schedule, with
minimal staffing and budget. This led me to the conclusion that submission and review
guidelines and procedures needed to be reviewed, and research into the best practices for these
two vital stages of publication needed to be conducted.
Using a variety of methods including: 1) online study of published submission and
review expectations for the big three (Kairos, theJUMP, and Xchanges), 2) personal interviews
and correspondence with Xchanges editor Dr. Julianne Newmark and theJUMP editor Justin
Hodgens, 3) submission and review data for Xchanges volumes 6.2 through current, and 4)
current research on academic publishing, I examine the ways in which Xchanges aligns with
acknowledged best practices. I also examine the ways in which Xchanges could become a
leader in the online journal community. Although there appears to a great deal of latitude in the
manner in which journals (both online/multimodal and traditional print) accept and process

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 5

submissions for publication, there are options for procedural changes which Xchanges could
implement to streamline both the submission and review process. Clearly delineated processes
and expectations would provide the journals staff with opportunities to build the Xchanges
brand into a valuable resource for aspiring authors and instructors alike.
I recommend that Xchanges reevaluate its place in the world of online, open-access
journals to determine the specific role it wants to play within this field. Once Xchanges staff has
made a decision, I further recommend that the journal create cleaner, more specific submission
guidelines. Finally, I recommend that Xchanges publish more information on its review process
and standardize the ways in which it receives and records feedback from review board members.
To become an online journal that provides a meaningful publication and pedagogical resource
Xchanges must maintain a consistent presence in the academic community. Intentionally
standardizing expectations and procedures will allow staff to produce a high quality publication
on a consistent basis with a minimum of staff effort.
METHODS
I began my research into this topic by speaking with Xchanges editor Dr. Julianne
Newmark. As the journals founder and sole staff member Dr. Newmark was able to provide
both qualitative feedback about the success of the journals current submission and review
structures and quantitative data that illustrates the results of the process. Given the limited
background of online journals in the academic publishing world, I investigated the policies and
procedures of journals Kairos and theJUMP. Since Xchanges is a refereed journal, it was also
important to me to view the best practices through the lens of traditional journal publishing.
I used the following 6 questions to examine these issues:
1. What are Xchanges current submission guidelines?
2. What are the industry standards for academic journal submission guidelines?
3. What are the industry standards for online academic journal submission guidelines?
4. What are Xchanges current review procedures?
5. What are the industry standards for online academic journal review procedures?
6. Quantitatively, what does Xchanges submission and review data say about the efficiency
of the journals current guidelines and procedures?
I chose to examine these specific questions because I felt there are generally accepted best
practices for journal publication. However, with the broad categorization of topics Xchanges
covers, I felt it was important to determine whether the journal was truly addressing the needs of
its constituents, the staff and authors. I also considered Dr. Newmarks stated goal of
becoming a pedagogical resource (J. Newmark, personal communication, February 3, 2016)
and how the journals guidelines and accepted best practices create a framework for this to be
a realistic goal. In the next section, I detail my findings and discuss what they mean for the
journal.

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 6

RESULTS & ANALYSIS

Question 1: What are Xchanges current submission guidelines?
To determine the status of these guidelines I completed a two-part process. First, I spoke
with Dr. Newmark about the methods she uses to create connections and build relationships with
the academic community outside of her current institution. Second, I reviewed the current
guidelines currently available on https://new.xchanges.org to gauge what information is being
presented to those seeking to submit an article. Information collected in this section was limited
to the description provided by Dr. Newmark and by reviewer opinion of information presented
on the journals website.
The journal currently distributes its Calls for Publication to members of the academic
community within Xchanges fields of focus. According to Dr. Newmark, these calls take place
primarily through writing, rhetoric, and technical communications LISTSERVs such as the
Writing Program Administrators (WPA) out of Arizona State, Writing about Writing, Writing
across Curriculum, and the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (J. Newmark, personal
communication, February 3, 2016.) Unfortunately, there is currently no way to track the method
by which submissions come to Xchanges. Once an author does arrive at Xchanges to read the
specific requirements for submission, he or she is met with a very general set of guidelines.
These guidelines are detailed specifically in the Appendix.
The submission guidelines for the journal are adequate and the journals website states,
the focus of the journal Xchanges is broad and inclusive, thus the journal editors are not
stipulating research-topic parameters for this issue. However, the guidelines nonspecific nature
could be hindering the journals usefulness as an instructional tool. Additionally, the submission
guidelines instruct authors to email their submission to the editor for initial review but provides
no indication of the time frame in which a decision will be made.
Although Xchanges has data about submissions received since volume 6.2, the
anonymized data I received was incomplete. Even accounting for the removal of author specific
information, the remaining data was not consistent. For example, of the ten volume spreadsheets
Xchanges provided I found only four contained information on a submissions category (Writing
& Rhetoric, Technical Communication, etc.); only three spreadsheets categorized every
manuscript submitted for that volume.
Question 2: What are the industry standards for academic journal submission guidelines?
Because Xchanges works within the parameters of traditional academic publishing and
focuses on becoming an instructional resource within the post-secondary system it is vital that its
submission process parallel those of traditional journals. This required me to complete the
beginnings of a faux submission to Technical Communication Quarterly published by the
Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW) and to review the submission
requirements of The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, another well-known,
international publication. The majority of academic research available on the submission and

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 7

review of scholarly articles is concerned with traditional academic publishing; therefore, I

reviewed several articles during my examination of this question.
Traditional scholarly journals provide basic formatting instructions, but other submission
guidelines vary widely. The Journal of Technical Writing, for example, fits all of its submission
guidelines into a few lines. The information provided covers a few specific requirements (e.g.
use of APA, footnote formatting, figure and table inclusion), but leaves out content-based
expectations.
Technical Communication Quarterly provides several separate pages of
submission guideline information. TCQ dedicates an entire section to a journal overview, another
section to journal policies, and an entire section to the types of submissions they accept (Figure
1).

Figure 1: Screenshot of one of three pages of submission

guidelines for Technical Communication Quarterly

Additionally, traditional journals, perhaps due to the standard nature of the manuscripts
submitted and the availability of funds, have moved from an email-based submission to an FTPstyle submission form. These forms allow journals to collect information through required fields,
recording pieces of data often neglected in email submissions. The standardization of
information collected and recorded through this type of submission software would make further
data analysis easier and more meaningful. Although traditional journals receive submissions
more frequently than Xchanges, there is still value for them in tracking this data. As Figure 2
shows, these online submission forms even require the author to categorize their own work into
the specific fields the journal addresses.
Traditional print journals do not face the same submission quantity issues that affect
Xchanges. Still, there are ample hurdles for those wishing to publish in traditional journals. In
their discussion of the publish or perish concept at the graduate level, Bartkowski et al. admits
that, students are often reticent to take on the seemingly mammoth task of publishing

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 8

(Bartkowski et al., 2015), so traditional journals also strive to make their submission processes
more author friendly. The guidelines used by Xchanges do not vary widely from the accepted
norms of traditional academic publishing.

Figure 2: Submission Form for Technical Communication Quarterly

Question 3: What are the industry standards for online academic journal submission guidelines?
As with traditional journals, the most efficient way to determine the practices of similar
journals (Kairos & theJUMP) was to seek the information as if I were interested in submitting a
piece for publication. I reviewed the submission requirements of both journals. Additionally, I
spoke with Dr. Justin Hodgens, founder and editor of theJUMP, which began publishing an
online and pedagogically focused journal for undergraduate multimedia projects in 2010.
Submission requirements for publication within theJUMP were by far the most involved than
others reviewed. Today, the journal struggles to increase the number and consistency/quality of
its submissions, and to establish a consistent publication schedule and therefore warranted
additional review. Interestingly, Dr. Hodgens and theJUMP have created a publication that
engages both author and instructor in the publication process.
TheJUMP, with its definite focus on the pedagogical aspect of publishing multi-modally,
offers more defined guidelines. Admittedly, since theJUMP requires original assignment
descriptions to be included in the submission, not all of the requirements come from the journal
itself. However, the expectation that all submissions require both author and instructor

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 9

reflections in addition to the multimedia assignment, they are providing more specific
information regarding submission than is found at Xchanges or in the traditional journals
reviewed.
Doug Eyman, editor of Kairos, communicated during his video lecture to our English 414
class, that Kairos essentially asks, who is reading and using the journal? What are they using the
journal for? And how can they make Kairos meet the needs of these users? Although all three
journals cover similar material and have similar submission processes (namely emailing the
editor), the differences in submission guidelines do vary. Due to the narrow format of Kairos
publication sections, their submission guidelines are more specific. A glance at the submission
page on their website not only links to their Style Guide (which covers technical and design
expectations as well as grammatical and style standards) but provides distinct categorization with
separate editor emails for submission. These guidelines do not read as prohibitive; rather, they
lead potential authors to deeper consideration of how their piece might fit into the journal
landscape.
One other thing to note is that both Kairos and theJUMP publish an anticipated
submission turn-around time and current submission acceptance rate where Xchanges does not.
This information provides valuable information to author and instructor. For information on the
variations in submission requirements between these three journals please see the Appendix.
Question 4: What are Xchanges current review procedures?
Xchanges currently uses a two-fold system to review submitted manuscripts. As
submissions are received, the journals Editor Dr. Julianne Newmark reviews them. If
manuscripts meet the stated submission guidelines, Dr. Newmark then sends out an email to the
review team requesting they choose the articles they would like to review based on the titles
alone. An example from one of her shared emails based on the titles below, take your
pick(s). Send me a prioritized list, with one or two alternates please, and I will assign articles
after assessing that (J. Newmark, personal communication, February 22, 2016). Manuscripts are
then reviewed by two members of the Review Board. Data showed however, that a few
manuscripts only had one reviewer. Reviewers then return their decision and comments to the
editor, who took the lead on notifying the authors of the decisions.
One aspect of the Xchanges review process that appeared flawed was the act of allowing
reviewers to choose the articles that they were interested in reviewing. While I understand this on
one level, publishers and authors alike want article reviewed by those most qualified and
knowledgeable contemporaries; I was also taken aback at how subjective the process seems from
the outside. There is also minor disparity between what is stated on Xchanges website Each
submission receives two readings by professional scholars (Xchanges Review Board, n.d.)
and the data provided, which showed several articles that were accepted or rejected based on
the decisions of a single reviewer.
Question 5: What are the industry standards for online academic journal review procedures?
Unfortunately, due to the scope of this project and the time allowed, it was difficult to
gain access to and examine the review procedures for both traditional and online journals. I was

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 10

able to speak with Dr. Justin Hodgens about the processes used at theJUMP. Additionally, after
editorial review, he tried to send the manuscript to the most qualified reviewers given the subject
and, if those reviewers are not available, he uses a rotation list to determine which reviewers are
due for a review (J. Hodgens, personal communication, February 29, 2016). The biggest
difference between theJUMP and Xchanges is that asking for volunteers to review a manuscript
is a last resort for theJUMP but the only process in place for Xchanges. The reviewers on
Kairos address the review process in a similar manner. The appropriate editor first reviews a
submission, and if approved in this tier, the submission is then discussed by the entire editorial
board [until they] come to collaborative assessment of its quality and potential (Editorial
Board and Review Process, n.d.). Of the journals reviewed, only Kairos, provides this level of
detail on their review process, and even the information provided falls short of explaining with
transparency what is expected.
Luckily, there is research available that speaks to the processes used at traditional
journals. At the most basic level, this research seems to mirror what I saw when reviewing
Xchanges and its two contemporaries. According to David Coniam (2011), guidelines for both
submitters and reviewers vary substantially, with some journals providing quite extensive detail
for both parties while others provide very little guidance. One of the biggest issues in the
publication of academic journals appears to be that reviewers are often left to their own devices
to determine what they are looking for in a submission and how they are going to respond to
what they find within a manuscript. A danger for the peer-review process is that, especially when
reviewing the work of someone with less experience in the field and in publishing, reviewers
may approach the process in a negative light. According to Fischer, Often, [reviewers] believe it
is their responsibility to reject manuscripts (as cited in Overall, 2015). A tendency towards
rejections is an issue for the field of academic publishing as a whole, but the issue could be
critical for journals such as Xchanges which wish to be used in an instructional format. Surely, if
the goal is for students to seek out opportunities to publish and become more comfortable with
the idea that they can and ought to think about publishing their work (as cited in Ford &
Newmark, 2011), then the overall atmosphere of journal publication, especially at this level,
cannot be one of instant failure.
Question 6: Quantitatively, what does Xchanges submission and review data say about the
efficiency of the journals current guidelines and procedures?
In order to examine the status quo of the submission and review process, I not only
reviewed the information qualitatively, through discussion with Dr. Newmark and review of the
journals website, but I also chose to look at the submission data collected by Xchanges staff.
Using spreadsheets provided by Dr. Newmark, I evaluated the undergraduate, graduate, and
cumulative manuscript submission and acceptance rates, and the consistency of information
tracked by journal staff. Submission and acceptance data was available for Xchanges volumes
6.2 through 11.1. Additionally, I removed the three submissions for volume 10.1 from the
dataset. Although there was a spreadsheet indicating that submissions were made and accepted
for this volume, it was not reflected as published on the website. As Figure 3 indicates, both
submission and acceptance rates are relatively consistent across graduate and undergraduate
volumes of the journal. Additionally, these numbers are in line with that of comparable online

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 11

journals, as displayed in Figure 4. Kairos is the outlier in this group; their 10% acceptance rate
is closer to that of traditional journals, which have rates between 10 and 20% (Overall, 2015).

Volume

Undergraduate
Accepted
6

6.2
7
7.1
7
7.2
8
8.1
8
8.2
8
9.1
9
9.2
1
10.2
1
11.1

Undergraduate
Not Reviewed

Undergraduate
Rejected

Graduate
Accepted

Graduate
Not Reviewed

Graduate
Rejected

Total
Submissions

10

13

13

12

17

28

80

T
13
0
21
Totals
Figure 3: Table of Accepted, Rejected and Not Reviewed Submissions

Figure 4: Submission Acceptance Rates of "The Big Three"

CONCLUSIONS
Overall, Xchanges follows procedures that are similar to those of both traditional print
and online, multimodal journals. Where Xchanges differs from industry leaders is in its focus and
consistency of journal procedures and expectations. If Xchanges had no pedagogical aspirations,
it could continue to offer only vague submission guidelines with no loss of integrity; however, its
lack of specific submission and review guidelines is detrimental to this goal. Xchanges, and other
online academic journals focused on webtext and multi-modal have the opportunity to publish
unique pieces of research in unique formats. They also have the opportunity to use submission
and review guidelines intentionally to match the boldness of submissions.

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 12

The benefit to Xchanges current requirements is that they align with the currently
accepted norms. On the other hand, there is really nothing, given the current requirements, that
sets the journal apart. It turns out there is also little to recommend the journal to instructors as an
instructional tool. There are several easy alterations that Xchanges can make to increase the
impact the journal can make on the academic community. In the section below I detail several
recommendations that I feel will help take Xchanges to the next level of academic publishing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. I recommend the journal create more specific submission guidelines.
The editor should consult with other professors, with students, and possibly with other
journal editors to identify how the journal wishes instructors to utilize the undergraduate and
graduate level resource it provides in the study of English & writing. If the journal itself is not
sure how it wants to be used as pedagogical resource, how can instructors who only see the name
in an email every few months be expected to make use of it? At present, there is nothing in the
make-up of the journal itself that indicates how Xchanges could fit into a classroom structure.
While instructors could certainly come up with a plan to include journal publication in their
lesson plans, the impetus should and does fall onto the journal to establish these processes if it is
including pedagogical resource as one of its goals. Right now, though the Call for Submissions
encourages instructors to have their students submit pieces to the journal, it does not really
provide a framework for them to do so. It relies heavily on the professors receiving the call to
identify and encourage submissions. With a better framework in place, instructors would have a
better idea of how to incorporate the journal into their classrooms.
2. I recommend that Xchanges publish current acceptance rates and anticipated turn-around
times for submission review on its website.
While these two data points are not strictly necessary, the inclusion of these items would be
especially helpful to instructors looking to use the journal in an instructional capacity. Knowing
the anticipated response time would allow them to discuss the process and the required
commitments with undergraduate students who may not be familiar with the publication process.
It would also allow instructors who wish to build projects for submission into their curriculum an
idea of how they wish to time these and what type of relationships they will need to begin
building with students who may require follow-up post submission. From a student standpoint
(especially undergraduate), these data points will reduce submission apprehension and increase
the perceived transparency of the journal.
3. I recommend that Xchanges create and publish review guidelines and provide brief training
to the Review Board on Xchanges submission expectations.
These guidelines should include, at a minimum, the expectations of timeframe for reviews to
be returned and detail the method, or combination of methods, by which reviewers will return
feedback. My suggestion would be to include a broad rubric as well as narrative feedback.
Discussions with current review board could help journal staff create a meaningful set of
guidelines that would standardize the experience for both reviewers and submitters. Ensuring the

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 13

guidelines are published would, again, help instructors build Xchanges into their lesson plans in a
meaningful way.
Training provided to the Review Board does not have to be extensive. It is important for
the reviewers to come together and establish that everyone is on the same page. A review of new
procedures and expectations will ensure that the both reviewers and journal staff can work at an
efficient speed and produce comparable results. Additionally, if the journal chooses to collect
more specific data in the feedback provided by reviewers it will be imperative that the reviewers
know what is expected of them and that they can make informed choices about what and when to
review.
4. I recommend that Xchanges enter into discussion concerning the method by which the
journal chooses reviewers for each manuscript.
Arguably, anyone qualified to join a journals review board, especially in a discipline such as
writing, should be well acquainted with the majority of topics covered in submissions. Even if an
assigned reviewer does not have the depth of knowledge that they may prefer on a subject, this
provides them with a unique opportunity to identify holes or inconsistencies in the manuscript
since their lack of familiarity with the topic would not allow them to cognitively fill in missing
information. Relying on volunteers has the added detraction of potentially leaving orphaned
manuscripts in which no one is interested in reviewing (Coniam, 2011). While the lack of
interest in certain manuscripts may be an indication that the manuscript lacks relevance, it could
also cause the journal to lose out on quality publications.
I have based the recommendations above on the research I completed during the course
of this project and my views as a potential submitter to the journal. I believe all of the
recommendations made here are feasible for the journal to undertake at no monetary cost.
Implementing these recommendations would take time up-front, but they would ultimately
reduce the strain on Xchanges staff and review board, increase the journals pedagogical
functionality, and make submission to journal more attractive to students within the journals
focal fields.

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 14

WORKS CITED
Coniam, D. (2011). Systematising System: One reviewers analysis of the review process.
System, 39(4), 539-553. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.10.018
Ford, J. D., & Newmark, J. (2011). Emphasizing Research (Further) in Undergraduate Technical
Communication Curricula: Involving Undergraduate Students with an Academic
Journal's Publication and Management. Journal Of Technical Writing And
Communication, 41(3), 311-324.
Kairos' Editorial Board and Review Process. (n.d.). Kairos Website. Retrieved March 01, 2016,
from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/board.html#review
Kairos. (n.d.). Kairos Website. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/about.html
Submissions. (n.d.). Kairos Website. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/submissions.html
Newmark, J. (2016). Submission Information. Xchanges Website. Retrieved February 29, 2016,
from http://new.xchanges.org/sub-1
Overall, J. (2015). Stop drinking the Kool-Aid: the academic journal review process in the social
sciences is broken, lets fix it. Journal Of Academic Ethics, 13(3), 277-289.
doi:10.1007/s10805-015-9237-3
Submission Information. (n.d.). theJump Website. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
http://jump.dwrl.utexas.edu/node/1
About. (n.d.). theJump Website. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
http://jump.dwrl.utexas.edu/content/about

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 15

APPENDIX
Comparison of Kairos, theJUMP, and Xchanges
Kairos1
refereed open-access online
journal exploring the intersections
of rhetoric, technology, and
pedagogy.

Focus

Themes/Sections

Style Guide
Available?
Stated Rejections
(What the journal
is not looking for)
Submission
Guidelines

Topoi
Inventio
Praxis
PraxisWiki
Reviews
Interviews
Dispautatio
KairosCast
Yes

standard, text-based article

written in a word processing
program
Can be found here
http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/su
bmissions.html
Too Lengthy for Inclusion

theJUMP2
electronic journal
dedicated to providing an outlet for
the excellent digital/multimedia
projects occurring in undergraduate
courses around the globe, and to
providing a pedagogical resource for
teachers working with (or wanting to
work with) new media."
Issues are themed but this is not
reflected
in
submission
requirements.

Xchanges3
online journal is a refereed
interdisciplinary Technical
Communication,
Rhetoric/Writing, and WAC
journal.

No

No

None

None

Assignment Description
Instructor reflection
Design Rational/process
reflection (author)

None
The focus of the journal
Xchanges is broad and
inclusive, thus the journal
editors are not stipulating
research-topic parameters for
this issue.

Reviewer
Selection

Entire Review Board

Targeted by editor
Rotation list

Current Issue Number for

which proposals are
being requested
Publication level
(Graduate or
Undergraduate)
Accepted topics by level
Accepted formats:
traditional journal article
or webtext
Submission Formats:
.DOCX for traditional
articles
Length of 15-25 pages
for traditional texts
A request for authors to
ensure browser
compatibility for
multimodal pieces
Inclusion of proof of
granting institutions ITB
approval if the research
utilizes human subjects
No indication of the
authors name in the
document or multi-media
text (for the purposes of
assuring anonymity
during the blind review
process.
Volunteer basis

XCHANGES SUBMISSION & REVIEW 16

Response Time

Acceptance Rate

3 Months

10%

Volunteer basis
Usually 4-8 weeks, current
disclaimer indicates that due to the
move the response time is currently
running 14-18 weeks
35%

1) Information collected from Kairos website accessed February 29, 2016

2) Information collected from theJUMPs Website accessed February 29, 2016
3) Information collected from Xchanges website accessed February 29, 2016

None

None