Although this is the first issue that carries our names as co-editors of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, we have been at work in our new roles for almost a year. We welcome the challenges and opportunities that this role entails. We look forward to the remainder of our term as co-editors, and to doing all we can to advance the mission of the Journal and the research of the science education community. Our field is growing in numbers and the number of available positions for science educators appears to be increasing. All of these are positive signs of the health of the science education community, both in the U.S. and internationally.
We want this journal to support research-based dialogue in this healthy and growing community. In our initial work as co-editors, we have seen a broad variety of manuscripts on many different topics from researchers in different nations and from different fields. Most of the manuscripts submitted for review have been reports of empirical research studies. As we have read and reviewed these manuscripts, we have noted a common weakness that affects many of these manuscripts: In reporting the methods and results of their research, authors do not adequately explain the place of their research in our field's ongoing dialogue about science teaching and learning.
The parts of a typical research article that should connect the study to the continuing dialogue in the field are the literature review and the discussion. We and our reviewers encourage more attention to preparation of research reports that place strong emphasis on thoughtful, concise reviews of research that is of relevance and significance in framing research questions, methods of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and in the final synthesis at the end of the articles.
Typically, analysis of literature is an iterative process. The literature review is not something that can be added on after the research is complete, when writing begins. It must be an initial component of research design. It also must be revisited during and after data collection and analysis, as important new additions to the research literature may emerge while research is being conducted. More importantly, the authors' perspective on the literature is likely to change as a consequence of carrying out the research and analysis of data. It is only through this thoughtful connection with research and scholarship of others that high quality research and important findings will emerge from inquiry.
The discussion at the end of an article provides another important opportunity to connect the results of a study with other scholarship in the field. Readers need to know how the results respond to, connect with, or challenge the work of other scholars, and to think about where this study leads. What important problems does it resolve, and what new questions does it suggest?
We call this to the attention of readers for several reasons: First, we feel that attention to grounding research in prior scholarship is an essential element of quality work. Second, those