Peering at the peer review process for conference submissions

A. Gardner, K. Willey, L. Jolly, Gregory Tibbits
{"title":"Peering at the peer review process for conference submissions","authors":"A. Gardner, K. Willey, L. Jolly, Gregory Tibbits","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2012.6462393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":120268,"journal":{"name":"2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2012.6462393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

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.
关注会议提交的同行评审过程
对许多学者来说,会议论文是提交期刊文章的垫脚石。然而,由于在会议上发言的时间压力越来越大,同行评议实际上可能是参加会议的唯一发展机会。因此可以说,获得学科标准和规范以及发展研究人员判断力的最重要机会是同行评议过程——但是这取决于评议的质量。在本文中,我们报告了澳大利亚工程教育协会(AAEE)年会同行评议过程中正在进行的一项研究的结果。我们首先检查了对提交给2010年会议的论文的评审在帮助作者改进和/或解决其研究问题方面的有效性。作者也有机会给他们的评论打分,随后我们分析了评论的性质和作者的反应。研究结果表明,利用同行评议过程引导人们进入该领域并改进研究方法和实践的机会被错过了,几乎一半的评议被评为“无效”。2011年AAEE会议的作者证实了2010年数据的发现。结果表明,我们的社区对什么是高质量的研究缺乏共同的理解。在本文中,除了上述研究的结果外,我们还报告了AAEE社区正在采用的框架,以制定适用于未来会议的标准,并描述了旨在增加对标准的理解和发展判断的审查活动,以提高我们工程教育界的研究质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信