Peer review-worthy papers, journal decision making, and more...

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Editage Insights
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review

A Big Thank You to our Reviewers in the Past Year!

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 191-195
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Past

Good reviewers are essential to the success of any journal and peer review is a major pillar of science. We are grateful to those mentioned below to have dedicated their time and expertise to help our authors improve and refine their manuscripts and support the Editor(s) in the decision making process in the past year.

Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative framework for supporting assistive technology decision-making in Singapore schools: perspectives of in-service educators

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Ee Wong ◽  
YingMin Lee
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Assistive Technology ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Technology Initiative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Trial Experience ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThis study explored in-service educators' experience of using the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI) for assistive technology (AT) decision-making within Singapore schools.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted a qualitative design. Eight educators across both mainstream and special education schools were introduced to the WATI framework which they subsequently employed as a trial experience for a student under their care. Written feedback gathered from participants was analysed to identify common issues and themes regarding the use of the WATI framework for AT decision-making.FindingsThe comprehensive consideration of a broad scope of different factors, provision of a structured process for AT decision-making, as well as a common language for use by different stakeholders emerged as key benefits of implementing the WATI. Challenges encountered include administrative struggles in gathering different stakeholders together, time and resource constraints and difficulties in loaning AT devices for trial use.Practical implicationsBased on educators' feedback, recommendations to facilitate the adoption of the WATI for AT decision-making within Singapore schools are discussed and considered. This study also highlights the need for greater AT instruction within both preservice and in-service teacher preparation programmes in Singapore.Originality/valueSchools in Singapore currently rarely adopt any frameworks in place to guide educators through a systematic process of AT consideration. It is anticipated that this study will spearhead and drive the adoption of systematic frameworks such as the WATI for better AT decision-making within Singapore schools.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon 10.1108/JET-03-2021-0015

A Big Thank You to our Reviewers in the Past Year!

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (01) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Past

Good reviewers are essential to the success of any journal and peer review is a major pillar of science. We are grateful to those mentioned below to have dedicated their time and expertise to help our authors improve and refine their manuscripts and support the Editors in the decision making process in the past year.The following received out Top Reviewer of the Year award:We wish all our readers, reviewers, authors and friends a happy and prosperous 2018!Matthias Schott, MD, PhD Stefan R. Bornstein, MD, PhD Constantine A. Stratakis, MD, D(med)Sci Editors-in-Chief

Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 994-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lambros Roumbanis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Dynamic Selection ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Epistemic Diversity ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Made In

At present, peer review is the most common method used by funding agencies to make decisions about resource allocation. But how reliable, efficient, and fair is it in practice? The ex ante evaluation of scientific novelty is a fundamentally uncertain endeavor; bias and chance are embedded in the final outcome. In the current study, I will examine some of the most central problems of peer review and highlight the possible benefits of using a lottery as an alternative decision-making mechanism. Lotteries are driven by chance, not reason. The argument made in the study is that the epistemic landscape could benefit in several respects by using a lottery, thus avoiding all types of bias, disagreement, and other limitations associated with the peer review process. Funding agencies could form a pool of funding applicants who have minimal qualification levels and then select randomly within that pool. The benefits of a lottery would not only be that it saves time and resources, but also that it contributes to a more dynamic selection process and increases the epistemic diversity, fairness, and impartiality within academia.

scholarly journals Chinese EFL Learners’ Decision-making While Evaluating Peers’ Texts

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingjing Ma
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Writing Proficiency ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Stimulated Recall ◽  
Chinese Writing

Approaching peer review from a process and contextualized perspective, this exploratory case study investigates two Chinese EFL learners’ decision-making patterns while evaluating peers’ texts in an online peer review and factors influencing these patterns. Detailed qualitative case study data were collected through think-aloud protocols, stimulated recall, semi-structured interviews, classroom observation and document analysis. Analyses indicate that the two learners with higher level of English writing proficiency to a certain extent illustrated contrasting patterns of decision-making, and yet both prioritized specific aspects of peers’ texts. Student-related factors such as perceptions of good English expository writing shaped by previous learning and assessment experiences of English (or Chinese) writing, type of writing task and weaknesses of student text interacted with one another to influence the participants’ decision-making patterns. Pedagogical implications for the findings are discussed.

Creation of a palliative care advanced practice registered nurse peer-review process

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 596-602
Author(s):  
Patrice R. Fedel ◽  
Nicole E. Hembel ◽  
Lindsey M. Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Case Review

The mark of a true profession is the ability to self-regulate. As such, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) are challenged by their professional organisations to participate in self-evaluation and peer review. Peer review is a method for evaluating the care provided by the APRN to both ensure quality nursing care and promote professional growth. Despite guidelines to participate in a formal peer-review process, there is little information within the nursing profession on how to accomplish peer review. A comprehensive literature review failed to provide a framework for peer review that is practice focused, fosters a learning environment and encompasses the thought process and clinical decision-making of the palliative care advanced practice nurse. A group of palliative care APRNs set out to create a process that encompassed the breadth of clinical decision-making in palliative care advanced nursing practice. Using the eight domains of palliative care, a narrative case review structure was created. The resulting process both assisted the APRNs in professional growth and provided timely feedback for the annual performance evaluation.

scholarly journals 11 International peer review and decision-making practices, bias, and burden: the funders’ perspective

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Meadmore ◽  
Alex Recio-Saucedo ◽  
Kathryn Fackrell ◽  
Abby Bull ◽  
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document