Investigating research quality and the review process: Some suggestions for improvement

Willey, K; Jolly, L; Tibbits, G; Gardner, A

Investigating research quality and the review process: Some suggestions for improvement

Willey, K

Jolly, L Tibbits, G Gardner, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: SEFI Annual Conference 2011, 2011, pp. 178 - 184
Issue Date:: 2011-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2010006637OK.pdf		663.58 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Willey, K https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-0346	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Jolly, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Tibbits, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Gardner, A https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2764-591X	en_US
dc.date.issued	2011-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	SEFI Annual Conference 2011, 2011, pp. 178 - 184	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19222
dc.description.abstract	Copyright © 2015 SEFI. Arguably, 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. 'Good' feedback has been identified as being timely, specific and relevant. Yet often reviews lack these basic qualities. In this paper we report an investigation of the peer review process at a recent engineering education conference. Authors at the conference were given the chance to rate their reviews, we subsequently analysed both the nature of the reviews and authors' responses. We found that reviewers generally do a poor job of applying criteria, leaving some authors feeling that the review process does not offer them enough help in improving their papers. On the other hand, authors showed some of the same tendencies we see in students to take criticism personally and hence reject it. We conclude by discussing some strategies that might be implemented to help both parties.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	SEFI Annual Conference 2011	en_US
dc.title	Investigating research quality and the review process: Some suggestions for improvement	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.for	1302 Curriculum and Pedagogy	en_US
dc.location.activity	Lisbon, Portugal	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CRIN - Realtime Information Networks
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

Copyright © 2015 SEFI. Arguably, 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. 'Good' feedback has been identified as being timely, specific and relevant. Yet often reviews lack these basic qualities. In this paper we report an investigation of the peer review process at a recent engineering education conference. Authors at the conference were given the chance to rate their reviews, we subsequently analysed both the nature of the reviews and authors' responses. We found that reviewers generally do a poor job of applying criteria, leaving some authors feeling that the review process does not offer them enough help in improving their papers. On the other hand, authors showed some of the same tendencies we see in students to take criticism personally and hence reject it. We conclude by discussing some strategies that might be implemented to help both parties.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19222