Wiki-Mediated Peer Review Process

2013 ◽  
pp. 134-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long V. Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Central Vietnam ◽  
Bachelor Of Arts ◽  
Efl Students ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
High Degree

The focus of this chapter is to explore if the collaborative potential offered by wikis translates into actual practice. The study examines the peer review process of 20 groups of English as a foreign language (EFL) students from two classes, i.e. a paper-based class and a wiki class, of a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) programme in a large university in Central Vietnam. Data analysis shows that the user-friendly wikis afford learning opportunities in two levels of analysis, namely participation and interaction, which lead to a high degree of information synthesis in the collaborative learning process. In terms of quantity, the multi-way nature of wiki-based exchanges confirms its characteristic of an architecture of participation. Likewise, the quality of the online peer review process is confidently affirmed in all three themes of collaborative interaction, i.e., socioaffective, organizational, and sociocognitive. It is concluded that the online platform of wikis turns the peer review process into a networking of both the academic and the social, and that wikis support a non-linear nature of collaborative learning.

Student Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Student Writing Projects

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Simkin ◽  
Nari K. Ramarapu
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Review System ◽  
Student Views ◽  
Term Papers ◽  
High Degree

The process of academic peer review—i.e., students evaluating each other's work—can help instructors address a host of higher institutional objectives, not the least of which is the total quality management of collegiate teaching. But more is known about this process from the viewpoint of instructors than from the perspective of students. The purpose of this study was to formally examine student views of a specific peer-review system in which undergraduates assigned final grades to each other's term papers. A survey instrument revealed a high degree of comfort with the process, as well as some insights into why a few students were uncomfortable with it.

scholarly journals Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e023357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Amy Price ◽  
Ella Flemyng ◽  
Andrew Demaine ◽  
Jim Elliot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Annual Acknowledgement ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
User Friendly

ObjectiveIn 2014/2015,The BMJandResearch Involvement and Engagement(RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers.DesignA cross-sectional survey.Setting and participantsPatient and public reviewers forThe BMJandRIEwho have been invited to review.ResultsThe response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings.ConclusionsPatient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them.

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document