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
  • [41] Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Hospitality and Tourism
    Deale, Cynthia S.
    Lee, Seung-Hyun
    Bae, Stephanie Jung-In
    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM EDUCATION, 2021, 33 (04) : 288 - 298
  • [42] Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals
    Sprowson, A. P.
    Rankin, K. S.
    McNamara, I.
    Costa, M. L.
    Rangan, A.
    BONE & JOINT RESEARCH, 2013, 2 (11): : 245 - 247
  • [43] The peer-review process of the Journal of Neurosurgery
    Firlik, KS
    Firlik, AD
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1999, 90 (02) : 364 - 370
  • [44] The peer review process in science education journals
    Baker, D
    RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2002, 32 (02) : 171 - 180
  • [45] Improving the peer review process with information technology
    Mandviwalla, Munir
    Patnayakuni, Ravi
    Schuff, David
    DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2008, 46 (01) : 29 - 40
  • [46] Peer review of the curriculum as a continuous process of improvement
    Marlowe, Karen F.
    Wargo, Kurt A.
    Kelley, Kristi W.
    CURRENTS IN PHARMACY TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2012, 4 (03) : 157 - 164
  • [47] What is the sensitivity and specificity of the peer review process?
    Garcia, Jose A.
    Chamorro-Padial, Jorge
    Rodriguez-Sanchez, Rosa
    Fdez-Valdivia, J.
    ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-ETHICS INTEGRITY AND POLICY, 2024, 31 (04): : 305 - 326
  • [48] Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the Indian Journal of Dermatology Venereology and Leprology over a 6-month period
    Gupta, Vishal
    Bhatia, Riti
    Pathak, Mona
    Ramam, M.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY VENEREOLOGY & LEPROLOGY, 2020, 86 (05) : 519 - 525
  • [49] Professionalizing Peer Review Suggestions for a More Ethical and Pedagogical Review Process
    Sciullo, Nick J.
    Duncan, Mike
    JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, 2019, 50 (04) : 248 - 264
  • [50] Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis
    Ford, Emily
    INSIGHTS-THE UKSG JOURNAL, 2019, 32