Peering at the peer review process for conference submissions

被引:0
|
作者
Gardner, Anne [1 ]
Willey, Keith [2 ]
Jolly, Lesley [3 ]
Tibbits, Gregory [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Technol Sydney, Sch Civil & Environm Engn, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
[2] Univ Technol Sydney, Sch Comp & Commun, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[4] Univ Queensland, Sch Mech & Min Engn, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
来源
2012 FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE (FIE) | 2012年
关键词
peer review; research quality; engineering education research;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
For many scholars conference papers are a stepping stone to submitting a journal article. However with increasing time pressures for presentation at conferences, peer review may in practice be the only developmental opportunity from conference attendance. Hence it could be argued that the most important opportunity to acquire the standards and norms of the discipline and develop researchers' judgement is the peer review process - but this depends on the quality of the reviews. In this paper we report the findings of an ongoing study into the peer review process of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) annual conference. We began by examining the effectiveness of reviews of papers submitted to the 2010 conference in helping authors to improve and/or address issues in their research. Authors were also given the chance to rate their reviews and we subsequently analysed both the nature of the reviews and authors' responses. Findings suggest that the opportunity to use the peer review process to induct people into the field and improve research methods and practice was being missed with almost half of the reviews being rated as 'ineffectual'. Authors at the 2011 AAEE conference confirmed the findings from the 2010 data. The results demonstrate the lack of a shared understanding in our community of what constitutes quality research. In this paper in addition to the results of the above-mentioned studies we report the framework being adopted by the AAEE community to develop criteria to be applied at future conferences and describe the reviewer activity aimed at increasing understanding of standards and developing judgement to improve research quality within our engineering education community.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Cultivating Ethics in the Peer Review Process
    Bryson, Rachel Welton
    Clem, Sam
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 40TH ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN OF COMMUNICATION, SIGDOC 2022, 2022, : 90 - 95
  • [22] The peer review process as an opportunity for learning
    Bautista, Alfredo
    Monereo, Carles
    Scheuer, Nora
    INFANCIA Y APRENDIZAJE, 2014, 37 (04): : 665 - 686
  • [23] Peer-review: overconfidence bias in a conference setting
    Ruiz-Conde, Enar
    Jose Mas-Ruiz, Francisco
    Calderon-Martinez, Aurora
    2013 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SERVICE SYSTEMS AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT (ICSSSM), 2013, : 800 - 802
  • [24] Peer Review Process in Medical Journals
    Cho, Young Gyu
    Park, Hyun Ah
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2013, 34 (06): : 372 - 376
  • [25] Peer Review Interactions for Malaysian Journals: The Revamped Open-Peer Review Process
    Ahmad, Jasni
    Shiratuddin, Norshuhada
    WCECS 2008: WORLD CONGRESS ON ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2008, : 487 - 490
  • [26] Is This Referee Really My Peer? A Challenge to the Peer-Review Process
    Tsang, Eric W. K.
    JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, 2013, 22 (02) : 166 - 171
  • [27] Anonymous group peer review in surgery morbidity and mortality conference
    Bender, Leila C.
    Klingensmith, Mary E.
    Freeman, Bradley D.
    Chapman, William C.
    Dunagan, William Claiborne
    Gottlieb, Jonathan E.
    Hall, Bruce L.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2009, 198 (02) : 270 - 276
  • [28] A history and development of peer-review process
    Jana, Siladitya
    ANNALS OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION STUDIES, 2019, 66 (04) : 152 - 162
  • [29] Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process
    Strauss, Dana
    Gran-Ruaz, Sophia
    Osman, Muna
    Williams, Monnica T.
    Faber, Sonya C.
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [30] The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future
    Drozdz, John A.
    Ladomery, Michael R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 81