Information about JCES, the Journal of Community Engagement Scholarship, which is produced by the Center for Community-Based Partnership of the University of Alabama.

1. 9 th International Research Conference on Service-Learning and Community Engagement October 12, 2009

2.  To disseminate community engagement research across a wide spectrum of disciplines, integrating teaching, research, and engagement  To become the leading journal in the field, publishing the best engagement research in the world  To lead the discussion about the role of engagement scholarship in the tenure, promotion, and reward system  To be a journal that makes a difference not only on campus but among community partners  To attract a representative editorial board in terms of disciplines, regions, race, gender, and methodologies  To use conventional as well as multimedia forms in our presentation of scholarly work

3. Challenges and Issues  Overcoming traditional scholarship paradigms and “silos”  Establishing equitable and meaningful partnerships  Maintaining rigor while supporting a re-conceptualization of rigor  Tenure, promotion, reward issues  Discovering key subject matter and recruiting distinguished contributors  Making the journal relevant to campus and communities  Involving students and community partners more deeply in scholarship, resulting in co-authorship  Developing a symbiotic relationship between journal and website  Making photography, audio, video, and interactivity integral, not an add-on  Connecting with other journals

8. JCES Volume 2, Number 1

19. JCES Review Criteria Rubric Scholarly contributions 5 Outstanding and creative 4 Above average 3 Average 2 Small contribution 1 No scholarly contribution Practice/community contributions 5 Outstanding and creative 4 Above average 3 Average 2 Small contribution 1 No practice/community contribution Pedagogical value to the classroom, scholarship, and/or civic engagement 5 Very important 4 Important 3 Modest 2 Trivial 1 None Adequacy of method/ approach 5 Appropriate 4 Adequate 3 Minor problems 2 Major problems 1 Inadequate Appropriateness of data analysis/Soundness of reasoning 5 Appropriately chosen & properly performed/Well reasoned 4 Adequate 3 Minor problems 2 Major problems 1 Inappropriate Clarity of writing 5 Excellent 4 Readable 3 Minor problems 2 Major problems 1 Unclear Interest to JCES readers 5 Of interest to all JCES readers 4 Of interest to majority of JCES 3 Of interest to half or less than half of JCES readers 2 Of interest to very few JCES readers 1 Not relevant to JCES readers

20. JCES Continues to Streamline Its Review Process