Peer review as developmental: Exploring the ripple effects of the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program

Abstract

In a Fall 2019 editorial, JEE editor Lisa Benson reflected on the "gladiatorial atmosphere" in academia that can be amplified by the peer review process (Benson, 2019, p. 311). Academia can feel like a constant uphill battle of rejections and criticisms from discerning gatekeepers. Peer review is no exception, especially in journals with high rejection rates, as toxic comments on both the work and the authors add insult to injury (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019). But it does not have to be this way. Benson argues that peer review "provides ample space for cheering each other on as well as tearing each other down" (p. 311). By emphasizing the role of peer review in supporting and mentoring authors, it can be leveraged to contribute to the scholarship of a field.Toward this goal, JEE launched the Mentored Reviewer Program (Mentored Reviewer Program, 2020) in 2019 to coach new or novice reviewers (such as graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and engineering faculty) through the review process with a mentor who has substantial experience in reviewing and writing engineering education research (EER) articles. In the program, mentees are assigned to a mentor after being matched based on common areas of expertise and research interests. During the program, which lasts approximately 6 months, mentors and mentees work together on three reviews, following a scaffolded approach. The program emphasizes mentorship both in how the mentees are coached through the peer review process and how constructive reviews serve as a form of mentorship to help authors develop their best work to strengthen the scholarship of the EER community.We wrote this guest editorial as a team and started by reflecting on what we learned as mentees in the first offering of the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program and how we have grown as reviewers and researchers. We shared our collective experiences and identified that the program has positively impacted our identities as engineering education researchers and our contributions to the EER community. To give structure to our reflections, we situate our experience in two complementary frameworks: the identity-trajectory framework (McAlpine et al., 2014) on an individual level and the community of practice framework (Jesiek et al., 2009) to conceptualize our changing role in the engineering education community. In this editorial, we first unpack the impact of peer review on identity development followed by community development. We argue that the program has had a positive impact on our identities as engineering education researchers and our role in the EER community; we observe a ripple effect from the specific context of working on reviews of JEE manuscripts to our broader approach to research and writing, engaging with colleagues, and reviewing for other journals and conferences. | PEER REVIEW AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENTAs an emergent field, EER embraces and reflects multiple disciplinary perspectives, each with particular norms, standards, and definitions of quality research (Beddoes, 2014). A consequence for ea...

An exploration of capacity development of journal reviewers through a mentored reviewer program

“…Anecdotal evidence from the first round of the program confirmed the findings by Jensen et al (2020) and again highlighted the emergence of identity development and the role that communities of practice played in this transition. The researchers identified an opportunity to explore these further through this research study in relation to established literature on communities of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998).…”

“…Therefore, the JEE program was designed to build up reviewers to provide constructive peer feedback (Benson, 2019). A reflection from mentees on the first round of the JEE mentored reviewer program highlighted additional benefits, describing the "ripple effect" that the program has more broadly on their identities as engineering education researchers and their contributions to the broader research community (Jensen et al, 2020).…”

Inequity in Peer Review in Communication Sciences and Disorders

“…Another component includes proactively recruiting and supporting BIPOC reviewers and editorial board members, which Academic Pediatrics and RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal do (Barohn, 2021;Raphael et al, 2020). One specific way to support new reviewers, which the Journal of Engineering Education does, is by developing mentored reviewing programs to coach new reviewers through the peer review process with an expert mentor (Jensen et al, 2021). This not only provides a training opportunity for peer review, but also provides a way for early career researchers to get their name in the system for ad hoc reviewer selection and a way for more senior researchers to diversify their professional networks and to learn from junior reviewers who ideally represent the diversity that ought to inform science.…”

Inequity in peer review in communication sciences and disorders

“…Moreover, recruiting and supporting BIPOC reviewers and editorial board members, is a strategy that journals such as Academic Pediatrics and RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal have implemented (Barohn, 2021;Raphael et al, 2020). Some journals, such as the Journal of Engineering Education, have developed mentored reviewing programs to coach new reviewers through the peer review process with an expert mentor (Jensen et al, 2021).…”

“…Journals can develop mentoring programs to scaffold BIPOC into the peer review process (Buchanan et al, in press;Jensen et al, 2021), as well as to cultivate them as editors and Editorsin-Chief (Buchanan et al, in press;Guy et al, 2020). Third, in addition to developing accountability goals for editorial board composition and publishing that data, journals could consider implementing a mechanism for authors to provide anonymous ratings of reviews and reviewers (Buchanan et al, in press).…”