* Electronic learning activities, modules, lab exercises, web-based lessons
* Traditional articles with illustrations or animations dealing with ESS topics. Typically >2500 words.
* Short notes describing learning tools or techniques (i.e visualizations, datasets, etc.) Typically < 2500 words.
* Annotated image collections, with text describing the images and how they may be used
* Complete web based courses on Earth system topics
* Electronic textbooks
* Review papers summarizing the state of knowledge in an Earth system science topic
* Data briefs, letters, commentary, editorials, opinions, perspectives. These types of materials will be published at the discretion of the editors
* Reviews of materials already published elsewhere (eg books, software …)
* Etc.

Articles and resources about learning, and best classroom practice for Earth system education at all levels are especially encouraged.

Community announcements, position openings and general news items will be published via JESSE's partner community service site - Earth System Science Online

Resources submitted to JESSE are expected to be mature works that are carefully prepared and ready for peer discussion and evaluation. It is the author's responsibility to obtain any necessary permissions to use and reproduce any graphics, illustrations, photos, etc. not created by the author.

Resources will be reviewed by seven criteria which are also adopted by the Digital Library for Earth System Education:

1. Scientific Accuracy / Credibility
Scientific accuracy and credibility of a resource is critical. The information conveyed in a resource must be based upon recognized scientific principles and results, or empirical evidence observed directly. Resources dealing with scientific uncertainty are welcome, but should clearly describe the state of current knowledge and the nature of the uncertainty. Resources must avoid philosophical "spin" and should present facts openly with an unbiased manner. Scientific credibility and accuracy will be determined by reviewers intimately familiar with the science being described, and in most cases be practicing scientists themselves.

2. Pedagogical effectiveness
The pedagogical effectiveness of a learning resource must be considered in the context of how the object is to be used, the level of the audience to be reached, and the background of the teacher presenting the material. Pedagogies should be adapted to different learning styles, and a review of pedagogical effectiveness becomes an assessment of the match between the pedagogy presented and the intended audience. Some resources will lend themselves to be delivered using multiple pedagogies. The purpose of this element of the review is to categorize which pedagogies are being used and comment on their relative effectiveness for the target audience. This pedagogical categorization will be available as part of the metadata, searchable by the user. It is unlikely that any pedagogy will be categorically incorrect, but the pedagogy chosen will be noted, with respect to strengths, limitations and appropriateness for the target audience. The range of pedagogies applicable to Earth system education and their effectiveness among learning styles and audiences will be a welcome topic within JESSE.

3. Ease of use for students and faculty
Resources which are readily utilized and self explanatory are likely to be in demand by more people than complex learning resources with special system requirements, installation procedures or user caveats. This criterion will assess the simplicity of working with the learning resource, and note any special requirements or problems. Complicated objects may well require special operating systems, conditions and user inputs. The end user needs to be aware of these requirements in trying to adopt them for classroom use. Here again the peer commentary portion of JESSE will augment the original reviews on this topic, and users can comment on the ease of use of a learning resource via peer commentary.

4. Well documented
The resource must be complete and reviewable as submitted. Data file formats must be documented, a bibliography or reference list included if applicable, as well as a one paragraph synopsis of the resource, and statements regarding the grade level of the resource, intended audience, intended use (e.g. classroom, lab, student project, etc.) and intended duration of the exercise. Documentation should also list ancillary data required for the exercise (e.g. a specific textbook, or data set, image, observation, etc.). If applicable, the appropriate National Science Education Standards (NSES, 1996) or Benchmarks (AAAS, 1993) addressed by the learning resource should be referenced.

5. Importance / Significance
The importance or significance of a resource for educators is difficult to measure before making it available to the community and determining the degree of acceptance. A resource can deal with an important or significant problem, and still be of minimal value for classroom educational purposes, and vice versa. The developer of the resource will be required to state his/her perceived significance of the resource, which will be provided for the reviewer and then included in documenting metadata. Following publication, community response to the resource as indicated by the peer commentary received will be used to measure the resource’s utility for education.

6. Inspirational, motivational for students
Some learning rsources will motivate and inspire students more than others, and this review criteria will gauge the level and depth of student engagement and long term effect. Visually appealing layout, topical relevance and engaging content will contribute to high marks for this criterion. Reviewers will be asked to judge the perceived inspirational, motivational value, but direct student feedback via peer commentary is most important.

7. Robustness / Sustainability
Some learning resources are fragile, requiring specific operating system requirements, plug-ins or specialized software. These resources may be difficult to maintain and should be noted. Authors will be asked to identify any special system requirements that impact this criterion, and reviewers will note their experiences. The interactive open JESSE review process will assist authors to identify software or process flaws in the products, though the review itself is not to be a substitute for thorough beta testing of a product. Beta testing is essential before the formal review of the resource.

The following basic information about a resource is required:

1) Abstract, 300 words or less, describing the resource
2) Complete author contact information and short biographical sketch (<300 words) Authors are encouraged to submit a portrait style electronic photograph
3) A statement describing the intended audience and use for learning
4) A list of special hardware or software requirements for using the resource

Depending upon the resource, additional information (such as a CD or hardcopy of the resource) may be required as well, and will be coordinated by the Principal Editor managing the review and publication process

If a resource is text based, or can be printed without losing substance, JESSE will prepare a PDF version of the resource for distribution.

Copyright of all materials submitted to JESSE remains with the authors. JESSE only seeks the nonexclusive and irrevocable right to archive an electronic copy of the resource submitted for the purpose of making it available to readers. It is the authors' responsibility to obtain the necessary permission from the copyright holder to reproduce electronically any figures or tables taken from other publications.

Submission and Review Process

The first step is to send an e-mail to jesse@usra.edu describing the resource you would like to submit, or use the JESSE submission form being developed for the purpose. A JESSE editor will contact you with any questions, and to decide the best way to transmit the resource in order to prepare it for review.

The JESSE review process employs a review tool called the Digital Document Discourse Environment (D3E) which in turn uses HyperNews, converting a resource into a document suitable for electronic e-mail review. The software enables the reviewers and authors to comment section by section on the resource, and on the seven general review criteria. Reviewers and authors receive automatic e-mail from the D3E and HyperNews as the comments are registered.

At least three reviewers will be selected, and agree to conduct the online review in a relatively short period of time (2-3 weeks) The online review involves only the authors, editors and reviewers . There is no general public input into the process at this stage of JESSE review.

The authors and reviewers agree upon any changes that must be made to the resource, and the timeline for accomplishing those changes. Authors are encouraged to respond quickly to comments from the reviewers and editors. Part of the benefit of the JESSE review process is the involvement of the reviewers as direct advisors and consultants to the authors.

When any changes have been agreed upon and implemented, a summary of the reviewers' comments will be prepared by the editor, along with any comments the editor chooses to make. The author may also wish to make a statement about the resource, changes that have been made, intended uses, etc. These summaries will be archived with the resource as a permanent record of the review, along with reviewer attribution (of the open reviewers), and will serve as the basis for public peer commentary, the opportunity for the general user to add their comments about the use of a resource. Peer commentary will be mediated by JESSE editors. It is JESSE's goal to bring resources to publication within 12 weeks of submission assuming revisions and changes to the original submission are relatively minor.

As part of the publication process, JESSE editors use a template to display resource metadata in a consistent web-based format which establishes the look and feel of the Journal. Standard information such as author, title, abstract, resource type, intended audience, reviewer comments, etc. are assembled on the JESSE home page, as well as information about how to download the resource or display and use it in the format intended by the author. A link will be provided back to the author's web site for current work, but a copy of the resource as reviewed will be archived on the JESSE server as a permanent journal entry to guarantee long term access.

The editorial board of JESSE is committed to the highest standards of publication as to both scientific content and clarity of presentation. The final decision to publish a resource is made solely by the Editor based on several expert reviews and the recommendation of the Principal Editor handling the resource.

Summary

JESSE editors want to work with authors to bring their creative educational resources to a broader audience of educators and students. JESSE offers a constructive and formal peer review process to help authors refine their work and receive professional recognition for their efforts, and seeks to fill a niche by publishing electronic educational resources which may be difficult to publish in traditional media. Authors are encouraged to submit learning resources, large and small, that exemplify their approach to Earth system science instruction.

Parts for an Author Form to be implemented as a Web Form

*******
Author Form

Name
Affiliation
e-mail


Title of Resource

Abstract (if available, < 300 words)

Type of resource

Learning Module
Article (> 2500 words)
Short note (< 2500 words)
Electronic Course
Electronic textbook
Annotated image collection
Letter
Review of already published resource (title of resource)
Editorial, commentary, opinion, perspective

Media (e.g. web-based instruction, Java applet, text and illustration, interactive learning script, visualization tool)

Platform, hardware, software requirements

*****