H809 – Peer-review (A11.10)
In Week 11 podcast 2 Alan Woodly talked with Professor John Richardson about peer review journals.
Certainly, I heard about peer-reviewed literature, and for some courses it was a requirement to use a certain amount of peer-review literature, but I never really worried how the process of peer-review works. Now I know 🙂
Before an article is published in journals, another researcher evaluate the article and write a critical response, similar to what we have to do in TMA03. The assumption or the idea behind is that although, like John argues a ‘lowly research student could write a perfectly adequate critical review of an article’, in reality an editor won’t rest their judgement on the opinions of one single reviewer, but will probably choose a range of reviewers.
We have to read two articles, one is the paper from Ardalan et al. (2006) and see whether the methodology is adequate, if the article is relevant to a certain audience, to access whether the work was well motivated and whether it is competently executed and so on.
I guess that is the reason why we are allowed to discuss the articles beforehand in the module wide forum, so that everybody gets a broader understanding and see what issues other raised or if the own view is confirmed. I nevertheless feel quite award about doing the next assessment, especially after the disaster with my last assessment were I had a far better feeling about my performance as the grade finally revealed. So much to my judgement, it is somehow disturbed and I have to find back some confidence 😦
It is somehow reassuring that researchers have no kind of formal training, but reviewing is according to John Richardson similar to assessing someone’s work. Well, as a teacher I should be capable of doing that.
Nevertheless, some kind of guidelines for reviewers would be great. Not sure if such guidelines could be found in the internet. I guess I will give it a try to conduct a brief search. Besides that, does the course material provide some guidelines to follow.