1,806,711 research outputs found
Reviewers' Report
No full textBiomedical Sciences Graduate Program Reviewers' Report for Academic Program ReviewBiomedical Sciences Graduate Program Reviewers' ReportBiomedical Sciences Graduate Program - Academic Program Revie
Reviewers' Report
No full textSchool of Public Administration (SPA) Reviewers' Report for Academic Program ReviewSchool of Public Administration (SPA)Reviewers' Report Academic Program ReviewSchool of Public Administration (SPA) - Academic Program Revie
Nutrition/Dietetics Program's Response to Reviewers' Report
No full textNutrition/Dietetics Program Response to Review Team ReportNutrition/Dietetics Program - Response to Reviewers' ReportNutrition/Dietetics Program - Academic Program Revie
Reponse to Reviewers' Report
No full textSchool of Public Administration (SPA) Response to Reviewers' Report for Academic Program ReviewSchool of Public Administration (SPA) Response to Reviewers' Report Academic Program ReviewSchool of Public Administration (SPA) - Response to Reviewers' Report Academic Program Revie
APR
No full textHealth, Exercise, and Sports Sciences Reviewers' Report for Academic Program ReviewHealth, Exercise, and Sports Sciences, Reviewers' Report, Academic Program ReviewHealth, Exercise, and Sports Sciences Reviewers' Report Academic Program Revie
APR
No full textArchitecture Reviewers' Report for Academic Program ReviewArchitecture, Reviewers' Report, Academic Program ReviewArchitecture Reviewers' Report Academic Program Revie
Academic Program Review
No full textSociology Department's Reviewers' Report for Academic Program ReviewSociology Department's Reviewers' ReportSociology Department - Academic Program Revie
Psychology Department
No full textPsychology Department Reviewers' ReportPsychology Department Reviewers' ReportPsychology Department - Academic Program Revie
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation
Get PDFI reviewed the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review, which consisted of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, early-acceptance procedures, author nominations of reviewers, results-blind reviews, structured rating sheets, open peer review, and, in particular, electronic publication. Some journals are currently using these procedures. The basic principle behind the proposals is to change the decision from whether to publish a paper to how to publish itpeer review, journals, publications
Reviewing, Reviewers and the Scientific Enterprise
Get PDFDespite their critical importance to the scientific enterprise, reviewers receive no formal training and reviewing has become a skill that they pick up through trial and error. Additionally, because most reviewers do not receive any feedback on their performance, any bad reviewing habits become entrenched over time. This has contributed to significant and unnecessary anxiety about reviewing and to antagonistic encounters between reviewers and authors. This paper seeks to correct this situation by defining reviewers as co-creators of scholarship and the reviewing as a quality control process in the production of scientific scholarship. The paper provides three groups of activities aimed at creating the right mindset among reviewers to facilitate this co-creation and quality control perspective: relationships, commitment and honest decisions and recommendations.reviewers, reviewing, scientific enterprise, scholarship, co-creations, Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,
- …
