教育研究评审机制的国际比较

Chiou-Rong Wang Yang, Huei Lan Wang
{"title":"教育研究评审机制的国际比较","authors":"Chiou-Rong Wang Yang, Huei Lan Wang","doi":"10.22158/FET.V1N2P180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the current status of educational research review mechanisms, assessment and ethical mechanisms in the UK, USA, Germany, France and Australia, and assesses the merits and shortcomings of the mechanisms and ways in which to improve them in those countries. This exploration is based on the perspective of comparative education and the concept of the academic tribe of T. Becher to assess peer review mechanisms. The research results include, first, the peer review system that was gradually developed in the UK, USA, France and Germany in the 1950s, which became a common mechanism for academic gatekeeping of the quality of educational research. Second, to ensure academic excellence, peer reviewers are required to be fair, professional, and specialized in a variety of “procedural justice” designs. Third, anonymous or not, peer review depends on the subcultures of different countries or academic communities. In the UK and USA, the process tends to be more transparent, and authors can suggest potential reviewers; however, this is not the case in Germany and France. Fourth, for the purpose of improving malpractice in terms of ethics and reliability in peer review, the professional qualifications of reviewers should be evaluated regularly. Finally, the outcome of the comparative study may be used as a reference for improvement of review mechanisms for educational research in Taiwan.","PeriodicalId":93436,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in education technology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An International Comparison of Educational Research Review Mechanisms\",\"authors\":\"Chiou-Rong Wang Yang, Huei Lan Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.22158/FET.V1N2P180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores the current status of educational research review mechanisms, assessment and ethical mechanisms in the UK, USA, Germany, France and Australia, and assesses the merits and shortcomings of the mechanisms and ways in which to improve them in those countries. This exploration is based on the perspective of comparative education and the concept of the academic tribe of T. Becher to assess peer review mechanisms. The research results include, first, the peer review system that was gradually developed in the UK, USA, France and Germany in the 1950s, which became a common mechanism for academic gatekeeping of the quality of educational research. Second, to ensure academic excellence, peer reviewers are required to be fair, professional, and specialized in a variety of “procedural justice” designs. Third, anonymous or not, peer review depends on the subcultures of different countries or academic communities. In the UK and USA, the process tends to be more transparent, and authors can suggest potential reviewers; however, this is not the case in Germany and France. Fourth, for the purpose of improving malpractice in terms of ethics and reliability in peer review, the professional qualifications of reviewers should be evaluated regularly. Finally, the outcome of the comparative study may be used as a reference for improvement of review mechanisms for educational research in Taiwan.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in education technology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in education technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22158/FET.V1N2P180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in education technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22158/FET.V1N2P180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了英国、美国、德国、法国和澳大利亚的教育研究审查机制、评估和伦理机制的现状,并评估了这些国家的机制的优缺点和改进方法。本次探索是基于比较教育的视角和T.Becher学术部落的概念来评估同行评审机制。研究成果包括:第一,20世纪50年代在英国、美国、法国和德国逐渐发展起来的同行评审制度,它成为学术界对教育研究质量把关的一种常见机制。其次,为了确保学术卓越,同行评审员必须公平、专业,并专门从事各种“程序正义”设计。第三,匿名与否,同行评审取决于不同国家或学术界的亚文化。在英国和美国,这一过程往往更加透明,作者可以建议潜在的评审员;然而,德国和法国的情况并非如此。第四,为了改善同行评审在道德和可靠性方面的弊端,应定期评估评审员的职业资格。最后,比较研究的结果可作为台湾教育研究审查机制改进的参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An International Comparison of Educational Research Review Mechanisms
This paper explores the current status of educational research review mechanisms, assessment and ethical mechanisms in the UK, USA, Germany, France and Australia, and assesses the merits and shortcomings of the mechanisms and ways in which to improve them in those countries. This exploration is based on the perspective of comparative education and the concept of the academic tribe of T. Becher to assess peer review mechanisms. The research results include, first, the peer review system that was gradually developed in the UK, USA, France and Germany in the 1950s, which became a common mechanism for academic gatekeeping of the quality of educational research. Second, to ensure academic excellence, peer reviewers are required to be fair, professional, and specialized in a variety of “procedural justice” designs. Third, anonymous or not, peer review depends on the subcultures of different countries or academic communities. In the UK and USA, the process tends to be more transparent, and authors can suggest potential reviewers; however, this is not the case in Germany and France. Fourth, for the purpose of improving malpractice in terms of ethics and reliability in peer review, the professional qualifications of reviewers should be evaluated regularly. Finally, the outcome of the comparative study may be used as a reference for improvement of review mechanisms for educational research in Taiwan.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信