Editorial Process

Submissions are evaluated by a faculty editorial board; however, because the faculty editorial board members may not have expertise on the content of every submission, we count on faculty mentors to work closely with student researchers to ensure manuscripts submitted for consideration are of an appropriate caliber for publication.  Following submission, the editorial board for The Rowdy Scholar will review the work to ensure that the work is original and meets our rigorous publication standards. The Rowdy Scholar is an inclusive journal and The Rowdy Scholar editorial board strives to have representation of research and creative work from diverse disciplines from across the university in each edition of the journal.  


Timeline for Editorial Process

As of the 2024 issue, The Rowdy Scholar will follow a rolling schedule for submission, review, and publication. In other wirds, there is no fixed deadline, and we will work with and publish papers as they are submitted. However, in order to make sure we have time to go through the editorial process, we will set a deadline of August 1, 2024 all initial submissions for the 2024 issue (can’t quite make that deadline? Never fear! You can submit for the 2025 issue).

All student submissions must have their faculty mentor submit a Faculty Mentor Support Form to be considered for review. Upon receipt of all necessary forms, your submission will be designated a unique identifier to preserve the integrity of the review process and will be forwarded to two reviewers from The Rowdy Scholar Editorial Board.  The approximate timeline for review by faculty reviewers is 4 weeks. Reviewers will make one of 3 decisions: 1) Accepted without revisions; 2) Accepted with Revisions (Minor or Major); 3) Rejected (for possible reasons for rejection, please see the following section.)  If revisions are requested, the student will have 4 weeks to make suggested edits and resubmit.


Revise and Resubmit? What are the reviewers trying to say?

If we ask you to make minor or even major revisions, this is not an implicit rejection of your work, but rather a suggestion that your work has the potential to make an impact! It just needs a little more polishing. In fact, “revise and resubmit” is the most initial common outcome (by far) when professional academics submit articles to scholarly journals. We, your professors, assume that our earlier drafts are not our best work; we expect to have to revise, and we treat that first round of review as an opportunity to get other people’s eyes on our papers, so they can offer suggestions that we might not have considered. The whole point of the review process is not just to publish work but to make it as strong as it can be, and if you get a revise-and-resubmit decision back from The Rowdy Scholar, it’s intended with that purpose in mind.

These guidelines for navigating the scholarly review process might be helpful. They are attended for professional academics, but they contain good advice for students who are negotiating this process, too: Understanding the Peer Review Process


Reasons for Revision Requests or Rejection

The following criteria must be met and are possible reasons for rejection or a request for revision for any submitted text-based or digital scholarship submissions.


If the answer is NO for any of the following, the submission will be REJECTED or RETURNED for edits.

  • Whether a text-based or digitalscholarship submission, is the work novel and does the work provide new knowledge that is appropriate for the discipline?
  • If the submission is scholarly work, is the approach to the scholarship evident, appropriate, and credible? Can the progression of the work be followed by someone outside of the discipline?
  • Does the scope of the research match the purpose of the work?
  • Is the manuscript written clearly and well-written?
  • Are references appropriately used throughout the text?
  • Are references formatted appropriately?
  • Is a text-based submission in an acceptable format?
  • Are figures associated with text-based submissions of acceptable quality?
  • Is a digital scholarship submission in an acceptable format?

Faculty Mentorship

If the answer is NO for either of the following, the submissions will be REJECTED until support is obtained.

  • Did the student(s) work closely with a faculty mentor?
  • Does the submission have faculty mentor support?
  • Did the faculty mentor submit the appropriate form to confirm support?


If the answer is NO for either of the following, the submission will be REJECTED.

  • Did a MSU Denver Undergraduate student or team of MSU Denver undergraduate students create the submission?
  • If a team of MSU Denver undergraduate students were involved in the submission, have all co-authors been informed about the submission?

Permissions (if applicable)

If the answer is NO for any of the following, the submission will be REJECTED until appropriate approvals are obtained.

  • If human subjects were used for the project, does the student have the approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB)?
  • If animals were used in the project, does the student have the approval of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)?
  • If the project contains copyrighted material, is it properly cited, paid for, and/or used with the permission of the owner?


If the answer is NO for either of the following, the submission will be REJECTED or RETURNED for edits.

  • If the submission is text-based, is it 2,000-6,000 words, including any works cited/references/footnotes/bibliography page?
  • If the submission is digital scholarship, can it be viewed, heard, or appreciated in a reasonable time?