学习同行评审的艺术:传播学科的启示

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
T. Thomson, Lesley Irvine, Glen Thomas
{"title":"学习同行评审的艺术:传播学科的启示","authors":"T. Thomson, Lesley Irvine, Glen Thomas","doi":"10.1177/1329878x241254568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars find the peer-review process to be a puzzling, non-transparent, and subjective exercise. Many emerging scholars also learn about the peer-review and publishing process through painful and time-consuming trial and error while still students or as early-career researchers rather than through formal training or guided supervision. Yet many pitfalls exist in this process for new and veteran scholars alike. With this study, grounded in the communication field, we aim to pull back the curtain on this opaque process and assist scholars in their publishing ambitions while also providing suggestions, primarily for journal editors and those who train future reviewers, about how the peer-review process can be improved for collective benefit. To do so, this grounded theory study reviews a year's worth of reviews from a communication journal to explore which issues reviewers identify within the submitted research, to explore how the reviewer feedback reveals their implicit understanding of their role in the peer-review process, and to identify how clear reviewers and editors are regarding which feedback is most important. Taken together, this allows for an understanding of how reviewers and editors engage in the social construction of research. The results inform the training of communication scholars, reviewers, and editors.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline\",\"authors\":\"T. Thomson, Lesley Irvine, Glen Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1329878x241254568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many scholars find the peer-review process to be a puzzling, non-transparent, and subjective exercise. Many emerging scholars also learn about the peer-review and publishing process through painful and time-consuming trial and error while still students or as early-career researchers rather than through formal training or guided supervision. Yet many pitfalls exist in this process for new and veteran scholars alike. With this study, grounded in the communication field, we aim to pull back the curtain on this opaque process and assist scholars in their publishing ambitions while also providing suggestions, primarily for journal editors and those who train future reviewers, about how the peer-review process can be improved for collective benefit. To do so, this grounded theory study reviews a year's worth of reviews from a communication journal to explore which issues reviewers identify within the submitted research, to explore how the reviewer feedback reveals their implicit understanding of their role in the peer-review process, and to identify how clear reviewers and editors are regarding which feedback is most important. Taken together, this allows for an understanding of how reviewers and editors engage in the social construction of research. The results inform the training of communication scholars, reviewers, and editors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Media International Australia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Media International Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241254568\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x241254568","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多学者认为同行评审过程令人费解、不透明且主观臆断。许多新学者也是在学生时代或作为早期职业研究人员,而不是通过正规培训或指导,通过痛苦而耗时的反复试验来了解同行评审和出版流程的。然而,新老学者在这一过程中都存在许多误区。通过这项立足于传播领域的研究,我们旨在揭开这一不透明过程的神秘面纱,帮助学者们实现发表论文的抱负,同时也为期刊编辑和培训未来审稿人的人员提供建议,帮助他们了解如何改进同行评审过程以造福集体。为此,本基础理论研究回顾了某传播期刊一年来的审稿情况,以探讨审稿人在所提交的研究中发现了哪些问题,探讨审稿人的反馈如何揭示了他们对自己在同行评审过程中所扮演角色的隐性理解,并确定审稿人和编辑对哪些反馈是最重要的有多明确。综上所述,我们可以了解审稿人和编辑是如何参与研究的社会建构的。研究结果将为传播学者、审稿人和编辑的培训提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning the art of Scholarly Peer-Review: Insights from the Communication Discipline
Many scholars find the peer-review process to be a puzzling, non-transparent, and subjective exercise. Many emerging scholars also learn about the peer-review and publishing process through painful and time-consuming trial and error while still students or as early-career researchers rather than through formal training or guided supervision. Yet many pitfalls exist in this process for new and veteran scholars alike. With this study, grounded in the communication field, we aim to pull back the curtain on this opaque process and assist scholars in their publishing ambitions while also providing suggestions, primarily for journal editors and those who train future reviewers, about how the peer-review process can be improved for collective benefit. To do so, this grounded theory study reviews a year's worth of reviews from a communication journal to explore which issues reviewers identify within the submitted research, to explore how the reviewer feedback reveals their implicit understanding of their role in the peer-review process, and to identify how clear reviewers and editors are regarding which feedback is most important. Taken together, this allows for an understanding of how reviewers and editors engage in the social construction of research. The results inform the training of communication scholars, reviewers, and editors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
×
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