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
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] Peering Into Peer-to-Peer Loans
    Gara, Antoine
    FORBES, 2016, 198 (07): : 98 - 108
  • [32] Peering peer-to-peer providers
    Balakrishnan, H
    Shenker, S
    Walfish, M
    PEER-TO-PEER SYSTEMS IV, 2005, 3640 : 104 - 114
  • [33] RANZCP PEER REVIEW GROUPS: PEERING INTO THE PAST, REGROUPING FOR THE FUTURE
    Prager, Shirley
    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2013, 47 (S1): : 65 - 65
  • [34] Academic performance, publishing and peer review: peering into the twilight zone
    Guthrie, James
    Parker, Lee D.
    Dumay, John
    ACCOUNTING AUDITING & ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNAL, 2015, 28 (01): : 2 - 13
  • [35] IMPLICIT QUALITY REVIEW OF GENERAL MEDICINE INPATIENTS - PEERING AT PEER-REVIEW
    HAYWARD, RA
    MCMAHON, LF
    BERNARD, AM
    CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1992, 40 (02): : A583 - A583
  • [36] Peering through the peer-to-peer fog
    Vrana, G
    EDN, 2001, 46 (16) : 75 - 79
  • [37] Inside Addiction: Peering into the editorial review process
    Babor, TF
    Edwards, G
    Stockwell, T
    West, R
    ADDICTION, 1996, 91 (12) : 1757 - 1763
  • [38] The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals.
    Gump, Steven E.
    JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, 2018, 49 (02) : 267 - 273
  • [39] On Strategyproof Conference Peer Review
    Xu, Yichong
    Zhao, Han
    Shi, Xiaofei
    Shah, Nihar B.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2019, : 616 - 622
  • [40] Peering by Exploiting Peer Heterogeneity
    Hsiao, Hung-Chang
    King, Chung-Ta
    Gao, Shih-Yen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERVASIVE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS, 2005, 1 (02) : 101 - 112