Journal of Urban Mathematics Education July 2015, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 10–13 ©JUME. http://education.gsu.edu/JUME DAVID W. STINSON is an associate professor of mathematics education in the Department of Middle and Secondary Education in the College of Education and Human Development, at Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3978, Atlanta, GA, 30303; e-mail: dstinson@gsu.edu. His research inter- ests include exploring socio-cultural, -historical, and -political aspects of mathematics and mathemat- ics teaching and learning from a critical postmodern theoretical (and methodological) perspective. He is a co-founder and current editor-in-chief of the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education. EDITORIAL Reviewing for JUME: Advancing the Field of Urban Mathematics Education David W. Stinson Georgia State University eer review—I think all of us in the academy have a love–hate relationship with this facet of our multifaceted academic lives. Most of us, specifically those who have earned, sought, or will seek tenure, have experienced a full range of emotions with re- spect to the peer-review process: joy, sadness, pride, disappointment, confusion, suc- cess, defeat, and so on. I certainly have experienced this smorgasbord, if you will, of emotions throughout my 15 years in the academy (which includes my 4 years as a doc- toral student). During the past decade and a half, I have been a receiver, writer, re- quester, and assessor of peer review. Within each of these roles, although I might not always want to admit it, I have learned something invaluable about the process: when written with both evaluative and educative purposes in mind, peer review, more times than not, just makes us and, perhaps more importantly, our research smarter.1 Silver (2003), in his Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) editorial “Reflections on Reviews and Reviewers,” made a distinction between the evaluative and educative purposes of reviews. The evaluative purpose, as discussed by Silver, is rather self-evident: researchers with particular expertise identify and dis- cuss what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of a submitted manuscript and make a recommendation regarding its publication (i.e., they evaluate the publication worthiness of a manuscript). The educative purpose is not always as self-evident: re- searchers with particular expertise provide comments and suggestions about theoreti- cal and methodological choices of a submitted manuscript and often attempt to ex- tend the findings and implications. They do all of this with the intention of assisting the author in revising the manuscript or in making decisions about future projects (i.e., they educate the author about other possibilities). 1 One should not infer from this statement that I accept and participate in the peer-review process—a more than 1,000-year-old idea (Spier, 2002) argued to be “a flawed process at the heart of science” (R. Smith, 2006)—without critique. The extensive scholarship of Foucault on discourse and discursive practices, surveillance and discipline, and power/knowledge critically interrogates the entire enterprise called science, including (directly and indirectly) the peer-review process (see, e.g., 1969/1972, 1966/1994, 1975/1995). P http://education.gsu.edu/JUME mailto:dstinson@gsu.edu Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 8, No. 1 11 Pushing further into this distinction between evaluative and educative purposes, Smith (2004) suggested that reviewers approach the task as one of mentoring authors by writing “reviews that teach” (p. 292). Such reviews, he claimed, “clearly articulate the main reasons why authors’ current arguments are inadequate and also present strategies they might pursue in correcting those deficiencies” (p. 293, emphasis in original). Borrowing three practices from good classroom teaching, Smith offered a frame of sorts of how to write reviews that teach. The reviewer needs to (a) “under- stand what the author thinks and, to the greatest extent possible, why he or she thinks it” (p. 293); (b) identify not only particular errors in the manuscript (or project), but also the general research misconceptions that are evident; and (c) model clear and sound arguments throughout the review, especially those that conclude with an unfa- vorable recommendation. Writing reviews that teach evidently are more time con- suming. Nonetheless, Smith’s proposal for reviews that teach was grounded in his conviction that (a) it is what [the field of mathematics education] produces that counts, and (b) the field does not principally advance when we make individual contributions to the literature. Ra- ther, it advances when the average quality of published research rises. Reviews that teach are an important influence on average quality because they supplement, in a very cost- effective way, the professional education of researchers. (p. 294) In repositioning Smith’s (2004) argument in the context of urban mathematics education, we have: It is what the field of urban mathematics education produces that counts. The field does not principally advance with individual contributions to the literature but rather when the average quality of published research rises. Reviews that teach are an important influence on average quality because they supplement, in a very cost-effective way, the profession- al education of urban researchers. But before discussing what it might mean to advance the field of urban mathematics education, we must first ask, “Is it even a field?” Well, let us see. It has it own Urban Education special issue (Tate, 1996). It has its own Journal of Urban Mathematics Education (Matthews, 2008). It has its own Handbook of Urban Education chapter (Martin & Larnell, 2013). It has its own Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education en- try (Stinson, 2014). It has its own (developing) theoretical framework (Larnell & Bullock, 2015). And Google and Google Scholar searches of the phrase return 5,610 and 365 hits, respectively. So, let us dispense with arguing whether or not urban mathematics education constitutes a unique disciplinary field, and just agree that it does.2 2 Let us also dispense here with the challenges of “defining” or describing urban mathematics educa- tion. The complexities of that task have been critically discussed at length in Martin and Larnell (2013). Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 8, No. 1 12 So then, given that urban mathematics education is its own unique discipli- nary field, how might it be advanced and who is responsible for that advancement? Over the past eight years, one group that has been instrumental in advancing the field is comprised of the scholars, researchers, practitioners, and graduate students who have offered their time and expertise to review manuscripts for JUME. With- out authors and reviewers the journal would not exist. There have been approxi- mately 230 double-blind reviews written by over 100 unique reviewers.3 We cele- brate those reviewers who have written reviews that teach. These reviewers, who understand that reviewing is indeed scholarly work (Heid & Zbiek, 2009), have as- sisted authors in getting smarter about their work and, in turn, they have made the research and scholarship available in the disciplinary field, well, just smarter. Recently, I completed a 3-year term as a member of the JRME Editorial Pan- el. During my time on the panel, I learned much about the historical beginnings and inner workings of what is certainly the most established and arguably the most re- spected journal in mathematics education. 4 I also learned much from the extraordi- nary leadership of Cynthia Langrall, JRME editor during my tenure on the panel. Through the next several months, I plan to use my newly acquired insights about knowledge production and dissemination and work with members of the JUME Ed- itorial Team to think and rethink the inner workings of JUME, including the peer- review process. We will keep readers, reviewers, and authors up to date as changes are implemented that will hopefully continue to advance the field of urban mathe- matics education in more ethically and just ways. As JUME matures, going through growing pains along the way, we hope to forever get closer to our mission: To foster a transformative global academic space in mathematics that embraces critical research, emancipatory pedagogy, and scholarship of engagement in urban communities. In the mean time, the JUME Editorial Team invites you to become part of a unique group that is advancing the field through writing reviews that teach. If you have not reviewed for JUME in the past, “make this your year to review” (Langrall, 2015, p. 2)—you can sign up here. And if you have reviewed in the past, please 3Every other year the JUME Editorial Team acknowledges the significant and time consuming contri- butions of our reviewers, please see January 2008–December 2009, January 2010–December 2011, and January 2012–December 2013. 4 One should not infer from this statement that I uncritically position JRME as the “gold standard” in mathematics education knowledge production and dissemination. To do so, would be wrong. The gene- sis of JUME was in reaction to the very fact that the mainstream or, more aptly, the “White-stream” journals (Gutiérrez, 2011) of mathematics education research are all but void of the kind of research that is published in JUME (see Matthews, 2008; Stinson, 2010). http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/user/register http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/55/36 http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/157/98 http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/225/146 Stinson Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 8, No. 1 13 make sure that your profile information, including your areas of interest, is up to date and complete. —We look forward to receiving your reviews that teach! References Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969) Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1966) Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975) Gutiérrez, R. (2011, April). Identity and power. In R. Gutiérrez (Chair), Who decides what counts as mathematics education research? Symposium conducted at the Research Presession of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Indianapolis, IN. Heid, K. M., & Zbiek, M. R. (2009). Manuscript review as scholarly work [Editorial]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(5), 474–476. Langrall, C. W. (2015). Make this your year to review [Editorial]. Journal for Research in Mathe- matics Education, 46(1), 2–3. Larnell, G., & Bullock, E. C. (2015). Toward a geo-spatial framework for urban mathematics educa- tion scholarship. In S. Mukhopadhyay & B. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Interna- tional Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 712–722). Portland, OR: Ooligan Press. Martin, D. B., & Larnell, G. (2013). Urban mathematics education. In R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 373–393). London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Matthews, L. E. (2008). Illuminating urban excellence: A movement of change within mathematics education [Editorial]. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 1–4. Retrieved from http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/20/9 Silver, E. A. (2003). Reflections on reviews and reviewers [Editorial]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(5), 370–372. Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357– 358. Smith, J. P., III. (2004). Reviews that teach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 292–296. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182. Stinson, D. W. (2010). How is it that one particular statement appeared rather than another?: Open- ing a different space for different statements about urban mathematics education [Editorial]. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 1–11. Retrieved from http://ed- osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/116/69 Stinson, D. W. (2014). Urban mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathe- matics education (pp. 631–632). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Tate, W. F. (Ed.) (1996). Urban schools and mathematics reform: Implementing new standards [Spe- cial issue], Urban Education, 30(4). http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/20/9 http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/116/69 http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/JUME/article/view/116/69