scholarly journals Mixed Method Study Examines Undergraduate Student Researchers’ Knowledge and Perceptions About Scholarly Communication Practices

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Melissa Goertzen
Keyword(s):  
Data Management ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Undergraduate Student ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Student Researchers ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Riehle, C. F., & Hensley, M. K. (2017). What do undergraduate students know about scholarly communication?: A mixed methods study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 145–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0009 Abstract Objective – To examine undergraduate student researchers’ perception and understanding of scholarly communication practices and issues. Design – Mixed method study involving a survey and semi-structured interviews. Setting – Two major undergraduate universities in the Midwest region of the United States. Subjects – Undergraduate students who participated in or had completed undergraduate research experiences with faculty mentors. Method – The method was first approved by Institutional Review Board offices at both campuses involved in the study. Then, students received invitations to participate in a survey via email (Campus 1 = 221 students; Campus 2 = 345 students). Identical online surveys ran separately on each campus; both remained open for a period of three weeks. All respondents received a reminder email one week before the survey closed. Participants answered twelve questions related to demographics and scholarly communication practices. The survey examined knowledge and experience across five areas: the peer review process, author and publisher rights, publication and access models, impact of research, and data management. All students who completed the survey were entered in a drawing for a $50 Amazon card. The response rates were 34.8% (Campus 1) and 18.6% (Campus 2). Surveys on both campuses were administered using different software: campus 1 utilized Qualtrics survey software while campus 2 used an institution-specific survey software. Data sets were normed and merged later in the study to enable comparison and identify broad themes. Survey respondents were also invited to participate in a 15 to 20 minute follow-up interview and were compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card. The interviews consisted of four open-ended questions that further examined students’ knowledge of scholarly communication practices. The researchers coded interview transcripts and identified themes. Qualitative software was used to analyze the surveys and assess coder agreement. Finally, connections and anomalies between survey and interview results were explored. Main Results – Quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study indicate that students were most confident in their understanding of the peer-review process and data management but felt less confident in their knowledge of author and publisher rights, publication and access models, and determining the impact of scholarly research publication. In addition, they value instruction related to scholarly communication topics like the peer-review process, publication models, and data management. However, few students feel confident in their current level of knowledge or ability surrounding the previously mentioned topics. Study findings suggest that this knowledge gap is based on a lack of training or discussion of scholarly communication topics in relation to students’ research activities. Results also suggest that undergraduate students have difficulty articulating their rights as authors and their scholarly communication practices. In many cases, skill sets like data management are learned through trial and error while students progress through the research process. In some cases, faculty mentors have misperceptions and assumptions about undergraduate students’ knowledge and abilities regarding scholarly communication practices. This can create challenges for undergraduate students as they attempt to make informed decisions about research activities based on a limited foundation of experience or information. Finally, results indicate that undergraduate student researchers do not currently view the library as a place to learn about scholarly communication practices. The authors suggest that by forming strategic relationships with undergraduate research program directors, faculty, and graduate student mentors, librarians are in a prime position to incorporate scholarly communication practices into information literacy sessions or provide point-of-need coaching. Conclusion – The researchers conclude that academic libraries are in a unique position to support overarching research, teaching, and learning goals within the academic community. By developing programs that support information literacy and scholarly communication, libraries demonstrate value and align goals with teaching and learning priorities within the higher education community as a whole. Through this work, librarians support students as knowledge creators and advocate for training that emphasizes data literacy, copyright and authors’ rights, and the impact of research within specific disciplines.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e020568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Communication Practices

IntroductionDespite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being ‘unscientific’. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders—namely authors, editors and peer reviewers—communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors’ point of view.Methods and analysisSemi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.

scholarly journals Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Emilija Stojmenova Duh ◽  
Andrej Duh ◽  
Uroš Droftina ◽  
Tim Kos ◽  
Urban Duh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
User Behavior ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Cooperative Behavior ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Strategic Games ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Smart Contract

Scholarly communication is today immersed in publish-or-perish culture that propels non-cooperative behavior in the sense of strategic games played by researchers. Here we introduce and describe a blockchain based platform for decentralized scholarly communication. The design of the platform rests on community driven publishing reviewing processes and implements cryptoeconomic incentives that promote cooperative user behavior. The key to achieve cooperation in blockchain based scholarly communication is to transform today’s static research paper into a modifiable research paper under continuous peer review process. We introduce and discuss the implementation of a modifiable research paper as a smart contract on the blockchain.

Engaged and Interactive Peer Review: Introducing Peer Review Circles

RELC Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-482
Author(s):  
Shaun Justin Manning ◽  
Todd Jobbitt
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Peer Feedback ◽  
Literature Circles ◽  
Classroom Task ◽  
Classroom Data

This article introduces Peer Review Circles (PRC), a classroom task that fully engages learners in the peer review process. The authors had observed their undergraduate students were reluctant to do peer review and even more reluctant to use the comments received. To improve the peer review process, the authors decided to change it into a multi-party oral, opinion gap task. Mimicking literature circles, we put students into teams of three and asked them to follow an expanding sequence of Monologue-Dialogue- Discussion (MDD) to discuss each essay. First, one reviewer gave a brief monologue about the writing, then another reviewer joined in and they had a dialogue about the writing while the writer remained silent. Finally, only after listening to the monologue and dialogue could the writer enter the discussion to ask the reviewers about what was said, get further feedback, or explain themselves more fully. This article first explains how to run a PRC and then justifies doing PRCs by using classroom data that demonstrates how interaction during the MDD sequence refines peer feedback from vague/general to specific/detailed and encourages peer review.

scholarly journals Quality Control through Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication: Review of Related Literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Vishnu Kumar Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Related Literature ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
The Status ◽  
Peer Reviewers

<p>This review of related literature on the theme of peer review process in scholarly communication explains the status of research on periodicals, grant peer review and fellowships. The paper highlights the quality related issues of the scholarly communication and peer review process. Peer reviewers are invited to grant applications or assess fellowship or review manuscript in a peer review process undertake the responsibility for confirming top-level quality and standards in their concerned subject fields. <em></em></p>

Benefit of Blogging for Archaeology

2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-36
Author(s):  
Robert Cargill
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Original Work ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Multiple Forms ◽  
News Organizations ◽  
The Impact

Blogging (or “web logging”) has evolved from online journaling to a multi-million dollar enterprise involving over 100 million blogs worldwide. And while journalists and news organizations have been quick to adopt blogging as a publishing tool, the academy has been slow to adopt the technology as a legitimate scholarly enterprise. This article argues that blogging is the next logical step for independent scholars and researchers who seek to publish their original work, and that universities should begin accepting blogging as a legitimate scholarly endeavor. Specifically, archaeologists should embrace blogging because of its ease of use, decreased time to publication, affordability, ability to publish multiple forms of media, and for the increased exposure publishing online brings to a scholar’s work. The article details the impact of blogging on existing publishing models, the peer-review process, and discusses the numerous benefits of blogging for archaeology.

scholarly journals Capacity Building in Peer-Review: a Student-led Journal Experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nunes Campos ◽  
Angela Theresa Zuffo Yabrude ◽  
Samantha Sartore Duque Estrada Medeiros ◽  
Taiane do Socorro Silva Natividade ◽  
Bárbara Okabaiasse Luizeti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Student ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
Journal Editorial ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Introduction: Peer-review plays a pivotal role in optimizing the quality of research articles. However, new strategies need to be implemented in the peer-review system to enhance research rigor, accurate reporting, and data reliability, such as increasing diversity among the reviewers through the inclusion of undergraduate students as reviewers. We aim to report the peer-review policies, procedures, and practices of a medical student-led journal editorial board in 2020, specifically detailing the challenges and the role of the students in the peer-review process. Methods: Through validated online training courses and peer education methodology, the students built capacity regarding the relevance of peer-review, its models, structure, and the publication process. The peer-review process was blinded for authors and reviewers, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and the minimization of identification bias. Guidelines for authors and reviewers were developed to add standardization to the submission and review processes, based on journals’ recommendations and reporting guidelines. Results: From July to August of 2020, the student-led journal received 254 submitted manuscripts from all five Brazilian geographic regions, compared to the 72 submissions received in the previous edition. After review, 50 manuscripts were accepted with major or minor corrections. Discussion: Peer-review contributes to the construction of content, and is the foundation for evidence-based medicine. In addition, it improves ethical thinking, communication skills, and critical appraisal abilities, also desirable in the academic and professional spheres. The medical student peer-review process has numerous benefits and should be promoted and further studied as a potential strategy for building capacity in peer-review.

scholarly journals Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-17
Author(s):  
Elena V. Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia K. Raitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
The World

The fundamental importance of the peer review in the context of scientific communication determines the unprecedented attention paid to it by researchers around the world. New trends in scientific communication are reflected in the transformation of the forms of peer review and the roles of its stakeholders. Within the framework of this article, the challenges faced by a modern reviewer are analyzed, the transforming models of peer review are presented, and the most significant issues generated by the logic of the development of the peer review process are outlined.

scholarly journals Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035600
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Personal Communication ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Communication Practices

ObjectiveTo generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.MethodRecruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.Participants56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).ResultsOur analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments.ConclusionsThese journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document