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
  • [31] An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences
    Miller, Edward
    James Weightman, Michael
    Basu, Ashna
    Amos, Andrew
    Brakoulias, Vlasios
    AUSTRALASIAN PSYCHIATRY, 2024, 32 (03) : 247 - 251
  • [32] Applying a fuzzy questionnaire in a peer review process
    Jonas, Tamas
    Toth, Zsuzsanna Eszter
    Arva, Gabor
    TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & BUSINESS EXCELLENCE, 2018, 29 (9-10) : 1228 - 1245
  • [33] Understanding the Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers
    Tucker, Katherine
    Davis, Teresa
    Duggan, Christopher
    Odle, Jack
    ANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISM, 2023, 79 : 261 - 261
  • [34] The Peer Review Process in Science Education Journals
    Dale Baker
    Research in Science Education, 2002, 32 : 171 - 180
  • [35] Nurse editors' views on the peer review process
    Kearney, MH
    Freda, MC
    RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH, 2005, 28 (06) : 444 - 452
  • [36] Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process
    Alexandru Marcoci
    Ans Vercammen
    Martin Bush
    Daniel G. Hamilton
    Anca Hanea
    Victoria Hemming
    Bonnie C. Wintle
    Mark Burgman
    Fiona Fidler
    BMC Research Notes, 15
  • [37] Journal peer review as an information retrieval process
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Egghe, Leo
    JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 2012, 68 (04) : 527 - 535
  • [38] Faculty peer review of teaching taskforce: A quantitative descriptive research study for the peer review process
    Jenkins, Emerald
    D'Aoust, Rita
    Elias, Sabrina
    Han, Hae Ra
    Sharps, Phyllis
    Alvarez, Carmen
    NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, 2021, 106
  • [39] Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process
    Marcoci, Alexandru
    Vercammen, Ans
    Bush, Martin
    Hamilton, Daniel G.
    Hanea, Anca
    Hemming, Victoria
    Wintle, Bonnie C.
    Burgman, Mark
    Fidler, Fiona
    BMC RESEARCH NOTES, 2022, 15 (01)
  • [40] Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
    Fox, Charles W.
    Burns, C. Sean
    Meyer, Jennifer A.
    FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, 2016, 30 (01) : 140 - 153