Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The purpose of Dialogic Pedagogy international peer-reviewed interactive online open access journal, free-of-charge for authors, is to advance international scholarship and pedagogical practice in the broadly defined area of dialogic pedagogy. The journal is international, multidisciplinary, multi-paradigmatic, and multicultural in scope. It is accepting manuscripts that present NEW (not previously published in English -- manuscripts previously published in other languages are fine for DPJ submission) and/or significantly expanded previous scholarship that addresses dialogic nature of teaching and learning in formal educational institutional and informal settings. We think that the relationship between pedagogy and dialogue should not be limited to or defined by particular institutions, specific settings, age of the participants, or fields as new visions and insight on particular tensions can arise from debates among paradigms, practices, and events. Hence, we encourage any research scholars and practitioners with an interest in dialogue and pedagogy to submit articles for editorial consideration. We encourage pioneers, visionaries, critics, innovators, and revolutionaries of Education to contribute. We also encourage discussions of de-schooling and unschooling.

We loosely define “dialogic pedagogy” as any scholarship and pedagogical practice, from educational researchers, philosophers, and practitioners, which values and gives priority to “dialogue” in learning/teaching/educating across a wide range of institutional and non-institutional learning settings. At this point, a variety of approaches to dialogic pedagogy have emerged. This includes, but is not limited to instrumental, interactional, epistemological, ecological, and ontological approaches to dialogue in education. We embrace diverse perspectives despite their possibly irreconcilable contradictions, disagreements, and dualisms. Juxtaposing conflicting ideologies and practices of dialogic pedagogy provides for authentic questions and tensions to emerge as scholars across various settings for learning, and cultural/historical practices provide rich perspectives on the problematic of dialogue in education. We believe that the journal on dialogic pedagogy has to promote a public discourse on what dialogue and dialogic pedagogy is and means rather than provide gatekeeping, censorship, or silencing of other approaches in the name of “true dialogue”, “true dialogic education,” “authentic education,” or “true dialogic pedagogy” (although this assertive discourse is welcome as well). Certainly a journal on dialogic pedagogy should not censor ideas, nor develop an (impossible) consensus. Rather, the journal is founded on the idea that the scholarly community should engage in dialogue about the meaning of dialogue in pedagogy, that is, to practice what it preaches. Through dissemination of scholarship in the journal, scholars will have an invaluable opportunity to engage in an international debate about what “dialogic pedagogy” means, across a diverse range of ideologies, values, settings (e.g., formal institutional and informal), histories, countries, social groups, and cultural practices.

Teaching and learning are broadly defined to include conventional institutional settings for learning and education, as well as informal, “free-choice learning environments” such as museums, and teaching/learning in settings not explicitly designed for learning such as, for example, parenting and other informal everyday settings. Scholars in fields outside of education but relevant to dialogic pedagogy are also encouraged to submit manuscripts (and participate in commentaries and online discussion), including but not limited to humanities, anthropology, sociology, linguistics, social work, psychology, philology, political science, social and criminal justice, philosophy, and so on. We also encourage philological, philosophical, and theological contributions about important dialogic thinkers of the past and present (e.g., Bakhtin, Buber, Arendt, Freire, Habermas, Voloshinov, Gadamer, Lévinas, Medvedev, Rorty, Bibler, Dewey, Adler, Plato, Spinoza, Hegel, Vygotsky, Piaget, Marx, Nicholas from Cusa, Rancière, etc.), addressing issues of concern to dialogic pedagogy or pedagogical aspects related to human relations fields (e.g., psychology, social work, sociology, etc.), and description and analysis of innovative dialogic pedagogical practices. Submissions in diverse interactive formats must make substantial contribution to the scholarship and practice through broadly defined research and/or theoretical and practice-based reflective discussions of the dialogic nature of teaching/learning or dialogue as a practice in teaching/learning. Discussions of a dialogic research methodology and debating epistemological, moral, political, and ontological issues in dialogic pedagogy are welcome as well.

This multi- and inter-disciplinary journal falls between Social Sciences and Humanities. We view the journal’s audience as international scholars and educators interested in broadly defined dialogic pedagogy.

The journal is indexed at least in the following databases:

  1. Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/
  2. Education Source https://www.ebscohost.com/academic/education-source
  3. The Finnish Publication Forum (http://www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/en) Level 1
  4. The Danish system (bibliometriske-forskningsindikator or BFI) http://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/statistik-og-analyser/den-bibliometriske-forskningsindikator Level 1
  5. The PKP Index http://index.pkp.sfu.ca/
  6. JournalSeek http://journalseek.net
  7. Open Access Journals Search Engine (OAJSE) http://www.oajse.com/ 
  8. SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php
  9. Worldcat https://www.worldcat.org/
  10. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) https://doaj.org/
  11. Jurn http://www.jurn.org
  12. Mendeley http://www.mendeley.com


Section Policies


Essays and thought papers on hot topics in Dialogic Pedagogy, by the Editors of the journal and by invitation.

  • Eugene Matusov
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


  1. Purely conceptual and/or methodological papers;
  2. Ethnographic and empirical research with conceptual analysis and "thick descriptions";
  3. Description of and reflection on innovative dialogic educational practices;
  4. “Special issue” – collection of thematically related papers.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Commentaries on published articles

Invited commentaries on published articles - both impressionistic and focused. Non-peer reviewed, invited by the editors

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Special Issue: Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Special Issue: The Cartography of Inner Childhood

This special issue features fragments of the book The Cartography of Inner Childhood by Alexander Lobok, a Russian Dialogic Educator

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Scholarship Beyond Essaystic Texts

In this section we publish Dialogic Pedagogy scholarship different from essayistic texts: interviews, polemics and discussions, podcasts, brainstoriming sessions, ficition (e.g. imaginary experiments), etc. These can involve diverse media formats: videos (with and without transcripts), audios, photos and texts. This section is NON-peer reviewed. As long as the volume of submissions to this section is low, there will be no designated Section Editors. Each submission will be assigned to two Managing Editors who will make all decisions regarding its faith. The authors do not need to obtain permissions from the participants of their multimedia events.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Reviews of books, films and videos, conference presentations, websites, and other types of publications and/or events relevant for Dialogic Pedagogy.

  • Silviane Barbato
  • Mikhail Gradovski
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Translations of already published works (Journal articles; Book Chapters, Essays, etc) in foreign languages.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Ethnographic materials -- videos, audios, field notes and transcripts with fragment-by-fragment analysis and discussions.

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Reports on projects and conferences

  1. Reports on interesting research and pedagogical projects about Dialogic Pedagogy;
  2. Reports about conferences, seminars, meetings relevant for Dialogic Pedagogy;
  3. In reports please provide hyperlinks, places, dates, info about participants, as necessary;
  4. Repors should not be longer than 2000 words;

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Peer reviewing policy

Stage#1 (3 weeks)

1)    Submission of an original manuscript via electronic online submission;

2)    Quick and holistic judgement by the DPJ Main Editors whether manuscript fits the Focus and Scope of the Journal and is comprehensible. If it does not, the Author will be notified with an e-mail of rejection.

3)    Assignment of 2 managing editors and one Main Editor to the manuscript by the editor-in-chief (or by the deputy editor-in-chief). The role of the Main Editor on the Managing Editors Team to represent the voice of the author (about a week);

4)    Quick but more in-depth judgment and decision by the Managing Editors Team on whether the manuscript has to be rejected without sending it to the full scale peer review. The rejection should be based on being out of the Aims and Scope of the journal OR on having unsalvageable problems with the quality of its argumentation, grounding, and/or research that would not promise an important contribution and productive dialogue in the DP field (no revision is possible). If the Managing Editors disagree with each other or find the manuscript promising, the manuscript moves to the next step (2 weeks);

Stage#2 (5-7 weeks)

5)       The Managing Editors Team selects 3-4 competent referees (minimum 2) in the appropriate field in or out of the DPJ community and send them the manuscript aiming at 4-week review. If the invited referees do not accept the assigned job in a week or two, they have to be replaced with new referees. The referees provide recommendation to the editors, justifications, and suggestions (if appropriate) based on their own authorial judgment (4-6 weeks);

6)     The Managing Editors Team makes their authorial decision informed by the Referees’ Comments and their own authorial judgment: (“Decline Submission”, “Resubmit for (new) Review”, “(minor)Revision Required”, or “Accept Submission (as it is)”. If they cannot make the decision, the Editor-in-Chief is assigned to make it (or a Deputy of the Editor-in-Chief depending on circumstances) (1 week);

7)      If the manuscript is sent back to the author(s) for major or minor revisions, and the author(s) decide to follow the recommendations and resubmit the revised manuscript, there is a 5-month deadline for re-submissions. If the revisions are not submitted within 5 months, the article will be automatically archived, unless there is a new deadline negotiated with the Managing Editors. In case the author(s) still wishes to pursue the publication in DPJ, they will be asked to create a completely new submission. In case the author(s) decide to withdraw the manuscript they should inform the Managing editors right away.

Total for the first reviewing cycle: about 7-10 weeks.

The consecutive reviewing cycles, if needed, can be shorter based on the managing editors’ judgments by omitting some steps or abbreviated, depending on the issues with the manuscript.

In a case when a manuscript is accepted and moving to minor revision, copyediting, and layout preparation stage, the managing editors may solicit commentaries among participating or non-participating DP community, referees, or even themselves. Any member of DP community can volunteer for commenting that goes through the managing editors’ reviewing process.

Part II. Anonymity, attribution, and collaboration

a)        Authors are encouraged to nominate Managing Editors and referees for their manuscript, experts in the addressed area, without any promise or obligation on a part of the DPJ editors to invite any of them;

b)       Authors may choose to remain anonymous (i.e., masked) or attributed (i.e., known);

c)        Referees may choose to remain anonymous or attributed for the authors and/or the public;

d)       During the reviewing process both authors and referees may change their status from being anonymous to being attributed to each other (and public or just to each other);

e)       DPJ Main Editors can submit their manuscripts for peer-review publications. However, to avoid a conflict of interest or its appearance, they have to submit their peer-reviewed manuscripts using a newly created pseudonym DPJ account. They should remain anonymous for the other Main Editors, all Managing Editors signed to their manuscript, and external reviewers, if and until their paper is accepted. The rest of the Main Editors, the assigned Managing Editors, and the external reviewers should remain blind with the regard to the real authorship of the manuscript. Thus, this policy precludes collaboration of ALL DPJ Main Editors on a peer-review article, while collaboration of fewer than all is possible.

Part III. Authors’ disagreements and conflicts with Managing Editors’ decision about their manuscript

First, let us state that it should be expected by DPJ that authors may legitimately disagree with DPJ Managing Editors decisions about the fate of their manuscripts and/or concrete recommendations. These disagreements are common and normal both as embedded in the logic of peer-review process and in personal experience of scholars. Although it may feel personal at times, there is nothing personal in these growing disagreements: scholars often view each other scholarship differently and disagreeably. The differences of how these natural disagreements are handled in DPJ is that, in contrast to many other academic journals, we have a public forum where authors can share their grievances and we can discuss these issues as an academic community. Also, we (i.e., DPJ community) are concerned about an imbalance of power between the authors (on the one side) and Managing Editors and external reviewers (on the other side) embedded in the current peer-review process in favor of the second side. To address this structural problem of the power imbalance we appoint a Main Editor to represent the author(s)’s voice on the Managing Editors Team. We hope that this appointment could help to develop better — more respectful, democratic, meaningful, and dialogic — peer-review journal practices. 

Second, Managing Editors should have a legitimate right to overrule judgments of external reviewers. The Editorial decision about the fate of the manuscript is formed the independent authorial judgments by the Managing Editors Team, assigned to a submitted manuscript, informed by external reviews. It is NOT a result of a mechanical counting how many external reviewers are “PRO” or “AGAINST.” 

Third, the final authority and responsibility for the manuscript belongs to the DPJ authors who may decide to accept or reject some or all of the judgments and suggestions proposed by the Managing Editors and/or external reviewers. The suggestions of the Managing Editors and reviewers are just merely potential direction for the authors to consider in the effort of producing a high quality manuscript and NOT conditions for publications. When authors choose to disagree with the Managing Editors and/or external reviewers, their justifications for their decisions can be very helpful for the Managing Editors and the external reviewers of the revised manuscript.

Fourth, although the final authority for the manuscript belongs to the DPJ authors, the final authority for publication of the manuscript in DPJ belongs to the DPJ Managing Editors.

The following policy addresses possible diverse conflicts between the Third and the Fourth points:

Case 1: The authors feel that the external peer reviews are not helpful or do not offer fair critique of their manuscript, while trusting in the Managing Editors Team.

If the authors feel that their scholarship spirit is not being understood enough by some or all external reviewers or some or all external reviewers are not fair (e.g., paradigmatic gatekeeping), they may ask the Managing Editors to change some or all external reviewers.

Case 2: The authors are satisfied with the Managing Editors Team’s decision but dissatisfied with their particular recommendations

If the authors agree with the Managing Editors Team’s decision but disagree with their suggestions, the authors should make their authorial revisions as they feel appropriate in light of reviews (and, of course, based on their own authorial judgments).  In an additional letter, authors should keep track of their revising decisions and their justifications, including rejections of the current Managing Editors Team’s suggestions. This letter may help the Managing Editors and the external reviewers better understand the authors’ angle on the manuscript and their scholarship.

Case 3: The authors are dissatisfied with the Managing Editors Team’s decision

If the authors are not satisfied with the Managing Editors Team’s decision, they should contact the DPJ Main Editors. The DPJ Main Editors will appoint different and additional temporary Managing Editors. The Temporary Managing Editors will consider all the reviews (external and form the current Managing Editors) and then form their own authorial judgment, which will be final.

Case 4: The authors continue to be dissatisfied with nearly all Managing Editors Team’s and external reviewers’ suggestions

If the authors find near all suggestions by the external reviewers and the Managing Editors, appointed and temporary, unhelpful for their own voice, DPJ may be not the best choice journal for their manuscript. In this case, the authors may want to consider withdrawing their manuscript and submitting it elsewhere, regardless of the Managing Editors’ judgment of seeing its promise for DPJ.

In a case of disputes with the Managing Editors that they cannot resolve themselves, the authors are encouraged to contact the DPJ Main Editors — the Editor-in-Chief and the 2 Deputy Editors — for their help and authority. For this reason, only one of the 3 DPJ Main Editors may be appointed as a Managing Editor for any particular manuscript.

If one or two Main Editors submit a manuscript as its authors, they should use pseudonyms and pseudonym DPJ accounts, known only to themselves and to the rest of the Main Editors who cannot serve as Managing Editors. All communication by the authors who are Main Editors has to be managed from the pseudonym account and separate pseudonym email address. In case of dispute described above, Temporary Managing Editors can be appointed by Main Editors, who are not the authors.  If all 3 Main Editors submit a manuscript as its authors, the Editors of Book Reviewer section will be appointed to manage conflicts between the authors and Managing Editors of this manuscript.


Part IV. Non-sexist and non-discriminatory language journal policy

The journal is committed to gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language, inclusive language, or gender neutrality that aims to eliminate (or neutralize) reference to gender in terms that describe people. For example, the words fireman, lesbian, stewardess, and, arguably, chairman, are gender-specific; the corresponding gender-neutral terms are firefighter, homosexual, flight attendant and chairperson (or chair). The pronoun "he" may be replaced with "he or she" or "s/he" when the gender of the person referred to is unknown. Other gender-specific terms, such as actor and actress may be replaced by the originally male term (actor used for either gender) (see more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language). Sexist, xenophobic, ethnic, national, body image, and homophobic slurs, or racist and classist terms should not be used unless it is a part of the research focus in itself.


Publication Frequency

The journal is volume-organized (except “a special issue” of a thematically related collection of articles). All unrelated articles are published as soon as they are ready for publication. The journal volume is defined by the year of articles' publications.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content. Our publisher, the University Library System at the University of Pittsburgh, abides by the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition of Open Access:


“By “open access” to [peer-reviewed research literature], we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”


Researchers engage in discovery for the public good, yet because of cost barriers or use restrictions imposed by other publishers, research results are not available to the full community of potential users. It is our mission to support a greater global exchange of knowledge by making the research published in this journal open to the public and reusable under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY license.


Furthermore, we encourage authors to post their pre-publication manuscript in institutional repositories or on their Web sites prior to and during the submission process, and to post the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version after publication. These practices benefit authors with productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

There are no article processing charges, submissions fees, or any other costs required of authors to submit articles to this journal.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Reviewer Guidelines

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for visiting our web page about peer reviewing.

The success of the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal (DPJ) and the field as whole heavily depends on work of the journal peer reviewers who assess and promote Dialogic Pedagogy scholarship. Engaging with a manuscript is, we believe, an act of scholarship, which benefits both the author(s) of an article, but also the reviewer him/herself, reviewing thus becomes part of a wider dialogue on the development and understanding of the field.

I. Purposes and tasks of the peer reviewing process
We see the main goal of peer reviewing process in assuring the professional quality of scholarship in the broadly defined field of Dialogic Pedagogy (see the Focus and Scope).This goal realizes through the following functions of the peer reviewing:

  1. Providing a recommendation to the DPJ Managing Editors Team by making an authorial professional judgment about whether or not the manuscript is suitable and (potentially) good enough for publication in the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal and justifying this judgment. However, the reviewer should not expect that this recommendation must be followed by the Managing Editors Team – the purpose of the recommendation is to inform the authorial independent judgments by the Managing Editors Team;
  2. If the reviewer does make recommendations for improvements, he or she should provide particular detailed suggestions for a next revision to the author(s) with justifications, assuring and promoting the author's (NOT the reviewer’s) voice and contribution to the field. Also, these recommendations should be really suggestions, assuming the author’s final authority and responsibility for the his/her/their manuscript, rather than conditions for successful publication;
  3. (Optional) If the reviewer judges a manuscript should be rejected, she or he may try to offer (but is not required) constructive suggestions for improvement so that it might be submitted elsewhere.
  4. Where appropriate, providing feedback comments on the readability of the manuscript in its margins and in the text for the author(s);
  5. (Optional) Providing a particular reader's response to the manuscript to the author(s), which is different than the review.

Thus, a peer reviewer for the DP journal will have several, at time conflicting, roles: a referee on quality and suitability, an advisor to the managing editors, a collegial helper to the author(s), a reader-commentator on the manuscript (optional).

II. Criteria for acceptance

A. Suitability of the manuscript for the Dialogic Pedagogy journal
The reviewer should make a judgment about whether or not the manuscript is suitable for the DPJ and its community behind the journal based on the description of the journal's Focus and Scope). If you have doubts about suitability and/or the description of the journal's Focus and Scope, please raise these doubts in your review to the editor.

B. Quality of the scholarship presented in the manuscript
A ‘good’ manuscript should have important contribution to the field and a strong potential for generating an important dialogue in the DPJ community (and hopefully even beyond it, but it is not required), in the reviewer's authorial professional judgment. A dialogue-disagreement is not less (but can be even more) valuable than a dialogue-agreement. Agreement is not necessarily a proxy for truth. Thus, the manuscript does not necessarily have to resonate with the reviewer’s own views or to be convincing for the reviewer. If the reviewer's judgment is that the manuscript has a strong potential for generating an important scholarly dialogue through a revision process, the manuscript should not be rejected without giving an opportunity for the author to improve it through a guided revision process. The reviewer should provide guiding suggestions for improvements and justify them, give the benefits of the doubt, and ask the authors clarifying questions.

Coming from a dialogic perspective, we do not believe that an agreement or a consensus among relevant people is a good proxy for truth and quality of scholarship. Even more, a strong, passionate disagreement between the reviewer and the author may signal the quality of the manuscript – we want to encourage the reviewer to volunteer to submit a response-disagreement for publication.

We do not believe that the quality and the rigor of scholarship can be ensured by a high rate of manuscript rejection. We believe that the criteria of quality never fully pre-exist the work of scholarship itself – any good scholarship generates new criteria of what good scholarship is about and transforms a relevant community of practice. The creative job of the peer reviewer is to pick up new criteria of quality emerging in the manuscript's scholarship. We believe that the quality of scholarship will be ultimately established through "internally persuasive discourse" (Bakhtin, 1991), in which "truth becomes dialogically tested and forever testable" (Morson, 2004, p. 319).

Although we approach reviewing positively for this Journal, seeking to recognize the best in all manuscripts, unfortunately from time to time, some manuscripts have to be rejected. Rejection should occur when the reviewer expects through his or her justified authorial judgment that the manuscript is not salvable through any revision process, or when the author cannot deliver enough improvements after a few revision cycle(s), and/or the manuscript does not contribute to either scholarly dialogue or to the wider field of DPJ. The reviewer provides important and necessary gatekeeping on behalf of the entire DPJ community and readership. The process of rejection may be uncomfortable, even painful, but it is very important work for the DPJ community of practice. Accepting poor quality scholarship can be detrimental for the field, the journal and, arguably, even for the author. The reviewer may offer constructive suggestions for the author of the rejected manuscript (optional).

III. Suggested structure of the external review
Here is our suggested structure of the external review:

To the Managing Editors only:

  1. The reviewer's recommendation regarding publication of the manuscript (to): 
    1. Accept Submission (i.e., publish as it is, the manuscript goes for the editing and layout processes);
    2. Revision Required (i.e., accept with minor revisions, the manuscript goes to the author for suggested minor changes, no more external reviews involved);
    3. Resubmit for Review (i.e., request major revisions and encourage resubmission without any promise to be published, the manuscript goes to the author for major revision and then for the next round of review, including external reviewers);
    4. Decline Submission (i.e., reject either due to unsuitability or poor scholarly quality).
  2. If any conflicts of interests affecting the review or important concerns about the reviewing process, the reviewer should articulate them (to the editors only).
  3. Comments (optional)
  4. Volunteering to submit a response for publication (optional).

To the Managing Editors and the Author(s):

  1. Please summarize major points of the manuscripts how you see them – this may help the Managing Editors and the authors to contextualize your judgments.
  2. Please abstract major contributions of the manuscript to the field and its strengths if you can find ones.
  3. Please provide justifications for your recommendation.
  4. Please abstract major issues with the manuscript along with your examples from the text and justifications (if any).
  5. Please list minor issues (if any).
  6. Please provide collegial suggestions for the authors to improve the manuscripts (if applicable).
  7. Readability feedback and editing suggestions through comments on the text's margins, suggested changes in the text, or at end of the text (e.g., asking for clarification by providing alternative reading the text, requesting missing info, asking to split or reorganize sentences, breaking texts on paragraphs, suggesting subheading). Please focus on readability of the text having the DP international readership in mind rather than on conventionality of scientific texts and the English Standard grammar. Please allow the author's cultural variation and personal experimentation with the style and genre that can fruitfully diversify the DP research (to the editors and the author). Clarity of communication addressing the DP community is the key issue here.
  8. (Optional) Feel free to provide your particular reader's response to the manuscript.


A)    Please do not be trapped by a stylistic or genre taste in judging the manuscript such as manuscript being "one-sided", "monologic", "not balanced", "authoritarian," and so on (remember Bakhtin's characterization of Tolstoy's novel as "monologic" – it would not have prevented Bakhtin from publishing Tolstoy's "monologic" novels!). Your judgment should be guided by the manuscript's contributions to and potential to provoke important dialogues in the field;

B)     Please try to complement your impressionistic observations on the manuscripts with examples from the manuscripts and your analysis;

C)    Publishable manuscripts should not be "weakness-free" but rather good enough for interesting public discussions;

D)    If you sense a paradigmatic disagreement or a paradigmatic "disgust" in yourself, this is a very good sign that this manuscript is worth of publication. New paradigms should not be censored but published although they may highly disturb our tastes and senses;

E)     If you feel becoming polemical with the author of the manuscript, we want to encourage you developing a critical commentary for publication in DPJ along with the manuscript – please indicate this to the Managing Editors;

In problematic situations that you cannot resolve completely yourselves, please seek help and/or advice from the Managing Editors.

IV. The peer reviewing policy and procedures

  1. Referees may choose to remain anonymous or attributed for the authors and/or the public;
  2. During the reviewing process both authors and referees may change their status from being anonymous to being attributed to each other (and public or just to each other).
  3. Referee's comments to the author(s) will be published on a special forum restricted to the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal website registered users.
  4. During the referee's work on their peer reviews, the referees are encouraged to visit and read comments posted on the special forum restricted to the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal website registered users by members of the DP community and/or the author(s).

V. Tone of peer review
We see any scholarship as often a difficult and frustrating process with a rather unpredictable outcome for any scholar: emerging or experienced, struggling or highly successful in the past. Mistakes and failures can and do happen for every scholar. It is also a collegial, collective, discursive, and dialogic enterprise involving the entire ill-defined DPJ community. Also, peer reviewing involves asymmetrical application of power that can affect institutional well-being of the author(s). Since we are all are practicing scholars with particular ontological, political, moral, ethical agendas, cultural and institutional biases, scientific paradigms, histories and backgrounds, social affiliations, and institutional and personal needs; we should seek open-mindedness and respect of the author’s work in the review process, and review as far as possible with awareness of possible negative impacts. We should also expect at times running in conflicts of interests interfering with, disrupting, and contaminating our peer reviewing process. We should also expect that some of these conflicts of interests may be invisible for us. Finally, we should expect our fallibility, – i.e., our unknown ignorance and even at times our invisible and unintended arrogance. That is why we need to use our peer reviewing power over the author(s) carefully, wisely, with reservations, and self-doubts (humbly).

The principles, which follow are, we believe, simply an articulation of good reviewing, which we are confident our reviewers would already demonstrate in practice. We suggest that the tone of peer reviewing should be:

  1. Respectful (i.e., not putting the authors down, not patronizing, expecting that the author can legitimately reject our suggestions);
  2. Collegial (i.e., addressing the author as an equal peer, sympathizing with the difficulties and problems that the author has faced);
  3. Supportive (i.e., assuring and promoting the author's voice, affirming the author's contribution to the field, recognizing the author actual and potential strengths);
  4. Humble (i.e., we all are fallible and even more: we are fallible in ways that we do not know yet or ever);
  5. Avoiding any discrimination (e.g., sexism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, ageism, expertism, snobbism, hierarchism);
  6. Avoiding silencing the author's voice and scholarship just because we disagree with the authors' findings, paradigms, ideas, or arguments;
  7. Answerable for the review to the author and a broader DPJ community (and even beyond).

We suggest you re-reading the final draft of your review, before sending it to the editors, as if you are the author who gets this review, to test its tone.

VI. The reviewer's authorship
The review can be a solo or collective work with your colleagues. Apprenticeship of junior, emerging, scholars is welcomed.

VII. Resignation from the peer review process
If for any reason, you find yourself not being able to finish your review assignment, please inform the Managing Editors Team as soon as possible. Please do not feel very bad, we understand that diverse circumstances can interfere. You don’t need to provide any justification.

Have a meaningful, fair, and enjoyable reviewing process!

The DPJ Editorial Board


Genres, Format, Styles

  1. The journal is volume-organized (except “a special issue” of a thematically related collection of articles). All unrelated articles are published as soon as they are ready for publication. The journal volume is defined by the year of articles' publications.
  2. The journal's core peer-reviewed genres:
    1. Purely conceptual and/or methodological papers;
    2. Ethnographic and empirical research with conceptual analysis and "thick descriptions";
    3. Description of and reflection on innovative dialogic educational practices;
    4. “Special issue” – collection of thematically related papers.
  3. DPJ welcomes submissions of manuscripts and multimedia of different genres, formats, lengths, and styles: innovations and experimentation are welcomed.
  4. The journal's auxiliary non-peer-reviewed genres:
    1. Editorials (by the Main DPJ Editors);
    2. Video/audio recorded or transcripts of innovative dialogic educational practices with possibility of fragment-by-fragment analysis of records and their discussions;
    3. Commentaries on published articles (both impressionistic and focused) (invited);
    4. Book reviews (invited or volunteered);
    5. Translations of previously published work;
    6. Scholarship Beyond Essaystic Texts;
    7. Manuscript work in progress for critical, supportive, non-judgmental peer feedback;
    8. Announcements for conferences and calendar events (e.g., journal fundraising);
    9. Links for other websites related to dialogic pedagogy and education.
In future, we plan to add the following genres:
  1. Future peer-reviewed genre: E-Books (e.g., “Dialogic Pedagogy Open Access Press”);
  2. Future non-peer-reviewed genres:
    1. Interviews;
    2. Forum(s) for dialogic polemics on hot issues of DP;
    3. Blogging (appearing on some more or less regular basis, any register reader can open a personalized blog);
    4. Wikis – for collaboration on a topic and/or a dictionary of dialogic pedagogy terms;
    5. Conference reports;
    6. Webinars;
    7. Podcasts.


Organizational Structure

  1. Registered readership and contributors – readers and contributors can freely register online;
  2. Self-appointed Editorial Board for decision making and serving as managing editors. Since people’s commitments and participation may change with time, each year there will be a call for self-reappointment, so we won’t have people on the list who do not want to participate.
  3. Treasurer and fundraiser (2 people), elected by the Editorial Board for the tenure term, who will be responsible for fundraising, budgeting, and reporting on the budget to the Editorial Board and the entire DP community by annually publishing the budget report.
  4. Managing editors (2 for each manuscript) solicited to serve by the editor-in-chief out of the Editorial Board. The managing editors decide if it is worth for sending a manuscript to the reviewers. If so, they will select the reviewers and made final decision about publication. If the paper is accepted, they will be responsible for readability feedback to the author(s) and suggestions for improvement of the paper. The managing editors will be also responsible for placing the finalized, accepted paper on the journal’s website (i.e., publication). Finally, the managing editors can invite commentators on the accepted paper. They are responsible for managing the work of the invited commentators and for preparing and placing the finalized commentaries on the journal’s web.
  5. Invited editors (at least 2 or more) – volunteered or invited and appointed by the Editorial Board or the editor-in-chief for preparing a collection of articles on a topic. Like managing editors, the invited editors are responsible for selecting reviewers, decision making, readability feedback and eventual putting the papers on-line [a concern: there can be a conflict of interests between the invited editors’ decision making about the manuscripts’ acceptance and their desire to see the invited issue done. How can we resolve this potential conflict of the interests?] Finally, the invited editors can invite commentators on the special issues. They are responsible for managing the work of the invited commentators and for preparing and placing the finalized commentaries on the journal’s web.
  6. Book review editors (2 people) – invite people for reviewing books, coordinate book reviewing, provide readability copyediting feedback, placing ready book reviews online.
  7. Registered reviewers selected by the managing editors (2-4 for each manuscript). The reviewers are responsible for providing the editors with their advice of whether or not they recommend the manuscript for publication and justifying their recommendations. In case, they recommend publication, they are also responsible for providing readability feedback to the author(s) and suggestions for improvement of the paper.
  8. Invited commentators – commentators for an accepted manuscript can be invited by the managing editors or by the invited special issue editors to write commentary on a paper or papers.
  9. The editor-in-chief will be responsible for the coordination of the journal work and staff, facilitation of DP Editorial Board decision making, providing leadership for the DP Editorial Board, selecting managing editors and special issue editors. The editor-in-chief is also responsible for “foreign affairs” of communicating with the outside organizations. The editor-in-chef is elected by the Editorial Board for the tenure term.
  10. The deputy of the editor-in-chief (2 people) will be responsible for helping the editor-in-chief for the coordination of the journal work and staff, facilitation of the DP Editorial Board decision making, selecting managing editors and special issue editors. The deputy editor-in-chef is also responsible for “foreign affairs” of communicating with the outside organizations. The deputy editor-in-chief is elected by the Editorial Board for the tenure term. In a case when the editor-in-chief submits his or her own manuscript to the journal, the deputy of the editor-in-chief will manage the manuscript through the process.
  11. Ombudspersons – 4 people representing different countries, elected by the Editorial Board for term tenure, are responsible for collecting complains on the journal practices, policies, editors, reviewers, contributors, readers, and the web and for addressing these issues by bringing it to the editors, the Editorial Board, and the entire community.
  12. Tenure of all elected officers is 4 years

Preparing new staff for new tenure.

13. The upcoming staff (i.e., the editor-in-chief, the deputy editor, the review editors, the ombudspersons) will be elected by the Editorial Board on the year before the end the staff’s tenure to learn the process through observation, participation in work communication, and apprenticeship to become the next staff.


Nomination and election of the Journal Officers

There are two kinds of officers in the DPJ:

Self-appointed or appointed officers. No election necessary:

a)     Self-nominated Editorial Board members. No election necessary. Mandate expires after a year. To be an active member of the EB, one needs to "self-appoint" once a year. (Technically this can be done through the website, that tracks registration and the role of an editor picked at the time of the registration. An e-mail can be automatically issued a month before the end of the period with a gentle reminder to renew one's registration as an editor.)

b)    Managing Editors – solicited and appointed by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors-in-Chief.

c)     Invited Editors – volunteered or invited and appointed by the Editorial Board and/or the Editor-in-Chief.

d)    Book review editors 2 – appointed by the Editorial Board and/or the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors-in-Chief

e)     Referee-reviewers – selected from broader DP community and appointed by DPJ Editors.


Elected officers of the DPJ:

Editor-in-Chief – 1

Deputy Editor-in-Chief  -- 2

Treasurer -- 1 [We wonder if for practical financial and legal reasons, the Treasurer may have to be from the country where the bank holding our funds is located, no? USA?].

Fundraiser – 1

Ombudspersons – 4 from different countries


Nomination and election procedures

a)     Nomination and election occurs every 4 years in June-July a year before the current tenure of the DPJ elected officers expires for creating continuity and promoting learning processes;

b)    Any active member of the Editorial Board can self-nominate or be nominated and elected for DPJ elected officer.

c)     Nomination period is for 3 weeks and stops at least 1 week before election.

d)    Each nomination should contain reasons for nomination, especially regarding the nominee’s scholarly work in dialogic pedagogy (in broad sense), organizational/communal/editorial/fundraising/finance management/reviewing experience (whatever is relevant for the job), and the particular reasons that would make her or him professionally suitable candidate for the position of the Editor-in-chief.


Decision Making Process and Procedures

  1. A facilitator, an appointed officer, or any member of the Editorial Board (EB) brings an issue to the Editorial Board email for discussion;
  2. There is an email discussion of the issue for about a week or until it saturates and exhausts itself;
  3. A facilitator, an appointed officer, or any other EB member summarizes the discussion by extracting all proposed options and their PROs and CONs;
  4. Online voting is set up for 4 full days by a facilitator with a dynamic report on voting available for the community;
  5. The voting results are reported to the EB email listserv;
  6. If the voting decision set by a majority of those EB members who voted was decisive, the decision is recorded on the web for final decisions. If, however, the voting was not decisive, a new, runoff, online voting is set up.

Amendments to the Decision Making Procedures:

1)           The Editorial Board consists of self-appointed members of the Dialogic Pedagogy community;
2)           Any Editorial Board member can participate in the EB decision making through the dp-eb online discussion and online voting;
3)           In case of disagreements among members of the Editorial Board, all decisions are made by a majority of Editorial Board members participating in the vote except point#4;
4)           To change Rules#1-4, a quorum of minimum 1/3 of the self-appointed Editorial Board listed on the Journal’s website is required for the online voting.


Language policy

Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal publishes peer-reviewed works in English, with optional supplemental materials in other languages which won’t be reviewed. In the spirit of the polycentric nature of English language and the submissions from the international body of authors whose first language may not be English, the Journal allows for variations in the overall composition, flow and scholarly style of the articles as well as the grammar of English. The readability of the manuscript for the Dialogic Pedagogy community should be negotiated among you (the author(s)), the editor(s), and the reviewer(s). However, it is the main responsibility of the author(s) to insure readability for the Dialogic Pedagogy community. The spelling should be standard (either UK or USA) unless warranted by the scholarship of the paper. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, its final draft in English will be published on the DP-IOJ website by the journal's editors. If you (the author(s)) also wish to publish versions of the article in another language (your first language), you will be responsible for all editing and production of the non-English version of the article.