114,838 research outputs found
THE NATURE OF FEEDBACK:HOW DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER FEEDBACK AFFECT WRITING PERFORMANCE
Although providing feedback is commonly practiced in education, there is general agreement regarding what type of feedback is most helpful and why it is helpful. This study examined the relationship between various types of feedback, potential internal mediators, and the likelihood of implementing feedback. Five main predictions were developed from the feedback literature in writing, specifically regarding feedback features (summarization, identifying problems, providing solutions, localization, explanations, scope, praise, and mitigating language) as they relate to potential causal mediators of problem or solution understand and problem or solution agreement, leading to the final outcome of feedback implementation.To empirically test the proposed feedback model, 1073 feedback segments from writing assessed by peers was analyzed. Feedback was collected using SWoRD, an online peer review system. Each segment was coded for each of the feedback features, implementation, agreement, and understanding. The correlations between the feedback features, levels of mediating variables, and implementation rates revealed several significant relationships. Understanding was the only significant mediator of implementation. Several feedback features were associated with understanding: including solutions, a summary of the performance, and the location of the problem were associated with increased understanding; and explanations to problems were associated with decreased understanding. Implications of these results are discussed
The Miracle of Peer Review and Development in Science: An Agent-Based Model
It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of
science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no
rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is
no risk in submitting low-quality work by authors. As a result, scientists face
a social dilemma: if everyone acts according to his or her own self-interest,
low scientific quality is produced. Still, in practice, reviewers as well as
authors invest high effort in reviews and submissions.
We examine how the increased relevance of public good benefits (journal
impact factor), the editorial policy of handling incoming reviews, and the
acceptance decisions that take into account reputational information can help
the evolution of high-quality contributions from authors. High effort from the
side of reviewers is problematic even if authors cooperate: reviewers are still
best off by producing low-quality reviews, which does not hinder scientific
development, just adds random noise and unnecessary costs to it. We show with
agent-based simulations that tacit agreements between authors that are based on
reciprocity might decrease these costs, but does not result in superior
scientific quality. Our study underlines why certain self-emerged current
practices, such as the increased importance of journal metrics, the
reputation-based selection of reviewers, and the reputation bias in acceptance
work efficiently for scientific development. Our results find no answers,
however, how the system of peer review with impartial and thorough evaluations
could be sustainable jointly with rapid scientific development.Comment: Submitted to Scientometric
Strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review
This journal article published at the October 2000 Frontiers in Education Conference discusses strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review. It outlines a peer-grading system for review of student assignments over the World-Wide Web called Peer Grader. The system allows authors and reviewers to communicate and authors to update their submissions. This system facilitates collaborative learning and makes it possible to break up a large project into smaller portions. The article summarizes a unique and innovative method of peer-review. Educational levels: Graduate or professional
Peer Review system: A Golden standard for publications process
Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed? Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article
- …