'If you can't be kind, be scholarly': constructive peer reviewing (LILAC 2016)
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•862 views
This workshop offers an introduction to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of peer reviewing, suitable for both current and aspiring reviewers. It may also be useful for writers of academic articles. It explores what peer review is and how it serves scholarship; looks at an example of a peer review form; considers how to read an article critically and analytically; and suggests how to give constructive, courteous and workable feedback that will enhance the final article.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie 'If you can't be kind, be scholarly': constructive peer reviewing (LILAC 2016)
Ähnlich wie 'If you can't be kind, be scholarly': constructive peer reviewing (LILAC 2016) (20)
Mehr von Emma Coonan
Mehr von Emma Coonan (18)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
'If you can't be kind, be scholarly': constructive peer reviewing (LILAC 2016)
- 1. If you can’t be kind, be scholarly Constructive peer reviewing EMMA COONAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION LITERACY GrouphugbyJorisLouwes,CCBY2.0
- 3. Aims • Explore what peer review is and what it’s for • Demystify what it involves • Foster constructive reviewers and critical friends to scholarship
- 4. What is peer review anyway?
- 5. Discussion 1. What is peer review? 2. What’s it for? 3. What does it not do?
- 6. Discussion 1. What is peer review?
- 7. Discussion 1. What is peer review? Appraisal of reported research by expert in the field May be ‘double blind’ – author’s name is not revealed May be 2 or more reviewers
- 8. Discussion 2. What’s it for?
- 9. Discussion 2. What’s it for? Verification of reported results as far as possible Guide the editor in a decision on whether to publish Help authors make the best possible presentation of their research to their community of practice
- 10. The $64,000 question “What’s needed to bring this up to publishable standard?” The point is not to eliminate but to include
- 11. Discussion 3. What does it not do?
- 12. Discussion 3. What does it not do? Proofread Replicate results Guarantee truth
- 13. What does it involve?
- 14. What to look for • Research informed and evidence based • Designed around an arguable research question • Contextualised with reference to previous and current advances in IL thinking • Methodologically robust with a demonstrable research design • Investigation not description
- 15. Guess the headings (there are 6!)
- 16. Guess the headings • Relevance to JIL • Originality and interest to audience • Title and abstract • Methodology • Use of literature and referencing • Clarity of expression and structure
- 17. Outcomes for each criterion • Appropriate • Needs amendment • Needs major rewriting or adjustment
- 18. Overall recommendation • Accept for publication without amendment • Revisions required • Major revisions required followed by peer review • Decline submission
- 19. How to look • Critically and analytically - not descriptively / not at sentence level • Test for weakness in argument and structure - use the what/why/how framework • Detached mindset - evaluate integrity of argument, not how far it matches your own view of IL • Don’t just review what you see - what is the author not saying? What literature hasn’t been cited?
- 21. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points
- 22. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points Question-led, evidence-based investigation
- 23. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points Question-led, evidence-based investigation • The $64,000 question
- 24. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points Question-led, evidence-based investigation • The $64,000 question “What’s needed to bring this up to publishable standard?”
- 25. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points Question-led, evidence-based investigation • The $64,000 question “What’s needed to bring this up to publishable standard?” • Strategic reading techniques
- 26. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points Question-led, evidence-based investigation • The $64,000 question “What’s needed to bring this up to publishable standard?” • Strategic reading techniques Including reverse outlining
- 27. Reviewer’s toolkit • JIL’s 4 bullet points Question-led, evidence-based investigation • The $64,000 question “What’s needed to bring this up to publishable standard?” • Strategic reading techniques Including reverse outlining • What/why/how
- 28. What/why/how • What is the research? What questions does it address? What contribution does it make? • Why has it been done? Why does it matter? What will it change? • How has it been done? What’s the method? How does it frame the findings? How has it helped the researcher mitigate bias?
- 30. “I would like to thank you again for all the constructive and benevolent effort that you and your reviewers put into this review and for the graciousness with which you did it. “I have been through several submission processes that have been quite impersonal and where the critical feedback has been either on the verge of cruelty or entirely neglectful. You and your reviewers stand apart …”
- 31. Discussion How can we be helpful and humane?
- 32. On being helpful and humane • Check your privilege - unequal power relationship • You don’t have to agree, just to check if the position is adequately grounded and defended
- 33. On being helpful and humane • Use what’s well done as a yardstick • “What I think would make this even better is …”
- 34. On being helpful and humane • “Show your workings” (be evidence-based!) • Give practical and workable suggestions for how to implement your amendments
- 36. 1. “This article is riddled with assumptions.” 2. “The writing is often arrestingly pedestrian.” 3. “It is clear that the author has read way too much and understood way too little.” 4. “Something is missing.” 5. “Not only does this strike me as the worst kind of postmodern legerdemain, but if true the statement would transform ethics into a hopelessly muddled enterprise.” From http://shitmyreviewerssay.tumblr.com/
- 37. Further reading Explorations of Style (2011) Reverse outlines Journal of Information Literacy, JIL author guidelines Lowell, Seri (2002) Helpful hints for effective peer reviewing Raff, Jennifer (2013) How to become good at peer review Schneiderhan, Erik (2013) Why you gotta be so mean?
- 38. Emma Coonan, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Information Literacy e.coonan@uea.ac.uk Twitter: LibGoddess
Hinweis der Redaktion
- This tweet is really what started off the idea for this workshop - … it prompted me to think (and tweet) “Be kind, always. And if you can’t be kind, be scholarly”. Meaning primarily: make your reviewing not only humane, but objective and evidence-based: just what we are looking for in all scholarly communications.
- And hopefully inspire confidence to review!
- Discuss in small groups and feed back to the whole group
- Single blind: reviewers are anonymous, but they know who the author is. JIL always uses double blind peer review (sometimes more than 2 reviewers).
- Looking for: analysis, verification, testing structure, meeting scholarly writing conventions, checking use of evidence etc.
- NB, this is my definition – other brands are (probably) available : )
- From the JIL Author Guidelines.
- Guess the headings game (from JIL form) – there are 6 aspects that the editor needs to know about: what do you think they are? NB – they aren’t the same as the bullet points on the previous slide – but some of them broadly correspond to the structure of the paper (Caveat: if you come up with a really good new aspect we may include it :D )
- Appropriate – needs amendment – needs major rewriting.
- On not proofreading: clarity of expression and sentence construction DO matter – but view them in larger terms, as demonstrating how well the author understands their own argument and is able to unfold it logically (see ‘structural integrity’ below). Structural integrity: is there a connection between the research question and the method chosen, between the method and the findings, and between findings and conclusions drawn? Do all parts of the paper point back to the research question and title? (for more on method, see Alison Pickard’s ‘guidebook’.
- How many can you remember?
- In a nutshell!
- Which is … ?
- Not just for your own sake as a reader: also the best way to test the structural integrity of a work. Name me some strategic reading techniques?
- The last two are also great for helping with writing!
- Discuss in small groups and feed back to the whole group
- Also: not being personal; not being absolutist; non-dismissive phrase constructions;
- Classic feedback sandwich manoeuvre
- Don’t just give vague directives! State what the issue is, why it’s not working for you, and how the author might go about making it work better.