scholarly journals Building genre knowledge through peer review: L2 doctoral students' feedback provision in the natural sciences

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (vol. 13 issue 2) ◽  
pp. 257-283
Author(s):  
Karyn Sandstrom
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Genre Knowledge

scholarly journals Teaching reproducible research for medical students and postgraduate pharmaceutical scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas D. Meid
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Pharmaceutical Sciences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Academic Settings ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Good Research

AbstractIn medicine and other academic settings, (doctoral) students often work in interdisciplinary teams together with researchers of pharmaceutical sciences, natural sciences in general, or biostatistics. They should be fundamentally taught good research practices, especially in terms of statistical analysis. This includes reproducibility as a central aspect. Acknowledging that even experienced researchers and supervisors might be unfamiliar with necessary aspects of a perfectly reproducible workflow, a lecture series on reproducible research (RR) was developed for young scientists in clinical pharmacology. The pilot series highlighted definitions of RR, reasons for RR, potential merits of RR, and ways to work accordingly. In trying to actually reproduce a published analysis, several practical obstacles arose. In this article, reproduction of a working example is commented to emphasize the manifold facets of RR, to provide possible explanations for difficulties and solutions, and to argue that harmonized curricula for (quantitative) clinical researchers should include RR principles. These experiences should raise awareness among educators and students, supervisors and young scientists. RR working habits are not only beneficial for ourselves or our students, but also for other researchers within an institution, for scientific partners, for the scientific community, and eventually for the public profiting from research findings.

Attitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle ◽  
Thiago Dias Sarti
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Global North ◽  
Important Exception ◽  
Open Review

Abstract Scholarly journals should consider the attitudes of their communities before adopting any of the seven traits of open peer review. Unfortunately, surveys from the Global North might not apply to the Global South, where double-blind peer review is commonplace even among natural sciences and medicine journals. This paper reports the findings of a survey on attitudes toward open peer review among four stakeholder groups of a scholar-led medical journal in Brazil: society members, journal readers, authors, and reviewers. Compared to a previous survey, which mostly recruited natural sciences researchers from Europe, this survey found similar support for open peer review in general and for most of its traits. One important exception was open identities, which were considered detrimental by most participants, even more in this survey than in the previous one. Interestingly, participants were more dismissive of open identities as a whole than of statements about its specific consequences. Because preprints are increasingly popular but incompatible with double-blind review, future research should examine the effects of transitioning from double-blind to open identities, especially on gender bias. Meanwhile, scholarly journals with double-blind review might prefer to begin by adopting other traits of open review or to make open identities optional at first.

Doctoral students' key learning experiences in the natural sciences

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna Vekkaila ◽  
Kirsi Pyhältö ◽  
Kai Hakkarainen ◽  
Jenni Keskinen ◽  
Kirsti Lonka
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Learning Experiences ◽  
Natural Sciences

Using an Online Discussion Board for Peer Review of Dissertation Writing For Ed.D. Students

2012 ◽  
pp. 108-120
Author(s):  
Beth Kania-Gosche
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Support Group ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Online Discussion ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Discussion Board ◽  
Dissertation Writing ◽  
Online Discussion Board

To improve graduation rates in doctoral programs, the Council of Graduate Schools has recommended more supports for dissertation writing. This article describes and evaluates through action research one such support, an online discussion board where students could post drafts of their dissertation and peer review each other’s work. Results of effectiveness were mixed because of the wide spectrum of student participation. Students did not feel they had the expertise to critically read another’s work, although they liked reading the instructor’s comments to other students. Future implementation of the discussion board might be more successful if it was utilized as a support group or frequently asked questions page rather than a place for peer review or if it was utilized for excerpts from the dissertation rather than entire chapters. Faculty involved with supervising doctoral students should consider what supports are being offered and continue to evaluate their effectiveness.

Supervision of Doctoral Students in the Natural Sciences: expectations and experiences

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Pole ◽  
Annemarie Sprokkereef ◽  
Robert G. Burgess ◽  
Emma Lakin
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Natural Sciences

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2072 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Postal Code ◽  
West Java ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Scientific Standards

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Konfrenzi • Number of submissions received: 37 • Number of submissions sent for review: 23 • Number of submissions accepted: 14 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 37.8% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 7 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Prof. Zaki Su’ud Email: [email protected] Dept. of Physics, Faculty Mathematics and Natural Sciences Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia Address: Jl. Ganesa No 10 Bandung, West Java, Indonesia Postal Code: 40132 Tel : +62-22-2500834 Fax: +62-22-2506452

scholarly journals Publish or Perish! Sharing Best practices for a Writing Instructor Led “Writing for Publication” Course

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sarbani Sen Vengadasalam
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Writing For Publication ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Break Up ◽  
Writing Instructors ◽  
The Way

There is an urgent need to teach “Writing for Publications” classes to graduate and doctoral students. Though the debate about who should instruct such classes continues, the paper proffers best practices for writing instructors to use while teaching it. The paper highlights the need for scholar-participants to opt for modeling as a way to familiarize themselves with disciplinary and journal conventions. The paper expands on the way online peer review workshops could be conducted at milestone points in the semester to elevate and formalize peer reviews, so integral to the publication process. A sample syllabus with week-by-week activity break-up is offered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document