Negotiation on the assessment of research articles with academic reviewers: application of peer-review approach of teaching
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Prashant Kumar (12) P.Kumar@surrey.ac.uk
Imran Rafiq (1)
Boulent Imam (1) - 关键词：Academic reviewers – ; Publishing research – ; Peer review negotiation – ; Articles evaluation – ; Teaching ; learning and research
- 刊名：Higher Education
- 出版年：2011
- 出版时间：September 2011
- 年：2011
- 卷：62
- 期：3
- 页码：315-332
- 全文大小：754.9 KB
- 参考文献：1. Aarssen, L. W., Tregenza, T., Budden, A. E., Lortie, C. J., Koricheva, J., & Leimu, R. (2008). Bang for your buck: Rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. The Open Ecology Journal, 1, 14–19.
2. Aarssen, L. W., Lortie, C. J., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Leimu, R., et al. (2009). Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior? PLoS ONE, 7(7), e6283. doi:
3. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguine Books.
4. Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process—the proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331–338.
5. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(2), 198–216.
6. Bornmann, L. (2008). Scientific peer review. An analysis of the peer review process from the perspective of sociology of science theories. Human Architecture. Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 6(2), 23–38.
7. Bornmann, L. (2010). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (in press).
8. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415–432.
9. Boyer, L. E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegic Foundation for the advancement of Teaching.
10. Buelens, M., Van De Woestyne, M., Mestdagh, S., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2008). Methodological issues in negotiation research: A state-of-the-art-review. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 321–345.
11. Carri贸, I. (2008). Of impact, metrics and ethics. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 35, 1049–1050.
12. Courneya, C.-A., Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. (2008). Through what perspective do we judge the teaching of peers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 69–79.
13. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Association of Physcis Teachers, 69, 970–977.
14. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–271.
15. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Edication, 24(3), 331–344.
16. Ferguson, I. B. (2003). Publishing papers in international journals. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A, 4(2), I–IV.
17. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53, 139–151.
19. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102, 16569–16572.
20. Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Association of Physics Teachers, 76(11), 1066–1069.
21. Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 26–259.
22. Linhares, G. B. R., Borges, M. R. S., & Antunes, P. (2009). Negotiation-collaboration in formal technical reviews. In L. Carri莽o, N. Baloian, & B. Fonseca (Eds.), CRIWG 2009, LNCS 5784 (pp. 344–356).
23. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiation: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quaterly, 28(4), 745–769.
24. Mittan, R. (1986). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207–219). White Plains, NY: Longman.
25. Quinlan, K. M. (2002). Inside the peer review process: How academics review a colleague’s teaching portfolio. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 1035–1049.
26. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
27. Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42–46.
28. Sahnoun, M. H., & Zarai, M. A. (2009). Auditor-auditee negotiation outcome: Effects of auditee business risk, audit risk, and auditor business risk in Tunisian context. Corporate Governance, 17(5), 559–572.
29. Southgate, D. A. T. (1991). Editorial: Reasons for rejection. British Journal of Nutrition, 65, 319–320.
30. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
31. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 146–169.
32. Vetschera, R. (2006). Preference structures of negotiators and negotiation outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 111–125.
33. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student learning. TESOL Quaterly, 19, 79–101. - 作者单位：1. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH UK2. Division of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Civil Engineering (C5), University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH UK
- 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
- 刊物主题：Education
Education - 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1573-174X
文摘
This study provides an insight into the dominant negotiation processes that occur between the authors of research articles and academic reviewers at the peer reviewing stage. Data of reviewers comments and authors responses on 32 science and engineering based journal articles covering four decision categories (accept as is, accept with minor revisions, major revisions and reject) were collected. A commonly practised peer-review approach in teaching was applied to analyse the data and to identify the key negotiation attributes, their frequency of occurrence, authors’ reaction and approach to negotiate with the reviewers. Six main negotiation attributes were identified. Technical quality was the most frequent (31% of all instances) attracting mixed reactions from the authors. The remaining attributes constituted suggestion (20%), explanation (20%), restatement (15%), grammar (13%) and structure (~1%). With the exception of ‘explanation’ where authors had to counteract to clear misunderstood concepts or contents by the reviewers, the other attributes were of highly collaborative nature and were willingly accepted by the authors. All these negotiations were found to help authors in improving the overall quality, clarity and readability of their manuscripts, besides forcing them to rethink about unclear contents. The negotiation trends emerged here can help the academic researchers to improve the quality of their articles before submission to the peer-reviewed journals. It can also provide a link through which their classroom teaching experience involving supervision of peer review negotiations among students can be utilised in writing their research articles and negotiating with academic reviewers.