Browsing by Subject "peer review"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap: A Call for a Residency Development Program
    (Sage, 2016-07) Schmalbach, Cecelia E.; Department of Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery, IU School of Medicine
    Current otolaryngology literature and future scientific direction rely heavily on a rigorous peer review process. Just as manuscripts warrant thoughtful review with constructive feedback to the authors, the same can be said for critiques written by novice peer reviewers. Formal scientific peer review training programs are lacking. Recognizing this knowledge gap, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery is excited to offer its new Resident Reviewer Development Program. All otolaryngology residents who are postgraduate year 2 and above and in excellent academic standing are eligible to participate in this mentored program, during which they will conduct 6 manuscript reviews under the direction of a seasoned reviewer in his or her subspecialty area of interest. By completing reviews alongside a mentor, participants gain the required skills to master the peer review process—a first step that often leads to journal editorial board and associate editor invitations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Disrupting Hierarchies of Evaluation: The Case of Reviews in Digital Humanities
    (Knowledge Futures, 2022-11-15) Risam, Roopika; Guiliano, Jen; History, School of Liberal Arts
    This essay discusses how the editors of the journal Reviews in Digital Humanities have developed a people-first approach to peer review: community-centered peer review policies, workflows, and practices intended to address the gap in evaluation of digital scholarship. This work offers a model for disrupting hierarchies of evaluation that position senior, tenured professors as the appropriate gatekeepers of “quality” for digital scholarship and instead reframes the notion of “scholarly community” to recognize that expertise lies beyond the professoriate — particularly when evaluating public-facing scholarship. The essay further offers an example of how to create a community-driven peer review culture that brings in graduate students, librarians, archivists, public humanities workers, curators, and more to assess scholarship. In doing so, it articulates a vision for disrupting conventional notions of “expertise” and, in turn, hierarchies of evaluation for scholarship within the academy. What does it mean to develop and implement a people-first peer review system? This question lies at the heart of our work founding and running Reviews in Digital Humanities, an open-access journal published on PubPub that is dedicated to peer reviewing digital scholarly outputs (e.g., digital archives, exhibits, data sets, games) based on humanities research. Reviews responds to a gap in evaluation at the intersection of technology and the humanities, offering researchers who produce scholarship in genres other than traditional monographs, journal articles, and book chapters the opportunity to seek the imprimatur of peer review and external vetting of their work. From our commitment to creating a humane system of peer review that supports scholars as people, to the design of our peer review workflow, to the selection of reviewers who participants, Reviews disrupts hierarchies of evaluation in the academy and aims to consistently remind our scholarly community that we are all people first.  The journal emerged from conversations between us, based on our experiences running peer review mechanisms for digital humanities conferences together. Through this work, we recognized a lack of consensus over how to peer review digital scholarly outputs. Despite the fact that colleagues in digital humanities create digital scholarship, there appeared to be no shared sense of how to evaluate digital scholarship created by others. Although professional organizations like the Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Historical Association (AHA) have invested time in developing guidelines, these have yet to be operationalized in evaluation. In addition to the challenges of conference abstract reviewing, there has also been a lack of outlets for peer review of digital scholarly projects themselves. We further observed that those most negatively affected by this lack of consensus were scholars in areas such as African diaspora studies, Latinx studies, Native and Indigenous studies, Asian American studies, and other areas that have been systematically marginalized in the academy. As many in these fields are also often scholars of color and/or Indigenous scholars, the peer review problems for digital scholarship compound harm in multiple ways: scholars in these areas already have a burden of demonstrating the legitimacy of their research, which is further compounded by the lack of an evaluation structure for the digital scholarship they create. This, in turn, has impacts on how their work is (or isn’t) valued in hiring, reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Recognizing that the many facets of these scholars’ identities as people has a direct impact on their professional lives, we identified the lack of peer review as a clear deterrent to building up digital scholarship in these underrepresented fields in digital humanities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Introduction: Reviews in Digital Humanities
    (2019) Guiliano, Jennifer; Risam, Roopika; History, School of Liberal Arts
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Looking Out and Looking In: Promoting Academic Success through Peer Review and Self-Reflection in Online and Face-to-Face Courses
    (2014-11-21) Zhu, Liugen; Hook, Sara Anne
    This presentation will illuminate why peer review and self-reflection are important in promoting academic success and student engagement in both online and face-to-face courses. It will showcase the effective and easy-to-implement techniques that the presenters use to provide students with opportunities to look outward and inward and how the results contribute to course grades and the overall assessment of student learning. Attendees will be able to incorporate these techniques into any course at any level.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Novelty: Nursing scholars’ guide for successful publication
    (Belitung Raya Foundation Indonesia, 2022-10-21) Gunawan, Joko; Aungsuroch, Yupin; Fisher, Mary L.; Marzilli, Colleen; School of Nursing
    The “pressure” or “passion” to publish is a common reality in academia. All faculty are required to demonstrate that they are engaged in research and that their work is disseminated in reputable journals. However, writing manuscripts is quite challenging; some papers for publication may take days, weeks, months, and even years. This editorial aims to provide the editors’ points of view to assist authors in successful acceptance and publication in an international nursing journal.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Upskilling the promotion and tenure process: Training administrators for responsible use of research impact metrics
    (2018-10) Coates, Heather L.; Odell, Jere D.; Pike, Caitlin
    School and departmental administrators are tasked with evaluating the research output of their faculty as part of the promotion and tenure review process. At our institution, this evaluation is communicated in a letter describing the dissemination venues for the candidate’s research publications, typically journals. Seen in one light, the letter is an opportunity for the school or departmental administrator to advocate for the candidate. However, the focus on dissemination venue rather than on the article or product itself wastes an opportunity to describe the value of the candidate’s work in the context of their discipline and institution. Instead of providing rich information about the work, these letters often copy content from the publisher website and provide Journal Impact Factors, when available, without context.   To encourage schools and departments to produce stronger letters in the assessment of a candidate’s dissemination venues, we developed a targeted training for Associate Deans for Research and Department Chairs. The opportunity to develop this training resulted from a broader conversation with faculty about journal cuts and other changes in the library’s strategy for providing access to scholarly content. The faculty asked the library to provide training about changes in scholarly publishing, citation metrics, and altmetrics. Given the time constraints of the audience, our training focuses on providing practical guidance for using and understanding new sources of evidence when writing and reading evaluation letters for promotion and tenure. In addition to describing the content and the institutional context for the training sessions, we will discuss the long-term implications of this effort.