The Art and Politics of Peer Review

Rojewski, Jay W.; Domenico, Desirae M.

doi:10.21061/jcte.v20i2.635

Cited by 7 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, despite the limitations, no viable alternatives exist (Eisenhart, 2002). Rojewski and Domenico (2004) go further to argue that "(d)espite the criticisms and flaws associated with the peer review process, it remains our best option for judging the merits of scientific research " (2004: 50). It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the pros and cons of peer review.…”

Section: What Has Gone Wrong?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas

Frey

Tsang

2006

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: What Has Gone Wrong?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas

Frey

Tsang

2006

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, other indicators such as publication consistency, peer review process, and reach to intended audience should be taken into consideration (Flanagan, 2013;King & Tenopir, 2001;Vogela, Hattke, & Petersen, 2017). In a small field, existing journals must compete for a limited number of submissions and ensure consistent editorial support and peer reviewing to keep publication production at predictable rates (Brownson et al, 2018;Rojewski & Domenico, 2004;Solomon, 2007). Further, the emphasis of publications is also important to ensure that new knowledge is reaching the intended audience (Brownson et al, 2018;King & Tenopir, 2001;King, Tenopir, Hansen Montgomery, & Aerni, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the underlying production process has remained essentially the same and tied to lingering issues associated with the role of the editor, editorial board, and peer-review quality that have been addressed in the literature (McGuigan & Russell, 2008;Ware & Mabe, 2015). These issues appear to be of interest in many disciplinary contexts, and have been discussed in CTE as well (Rojewski & Domenico, 2004;Tenopir, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, journals with editors serving only one-or two-year appointments may experience lags in production processes and dissemination timelines as new editors catch up with the new responsibilities (McGuigan & Russell, 2008). Issues with the peer-review process may also contribute to the rate of dissemination (Rojewski & Domenico, 2004;Solomon, 2007). The combination of these and other factors may cause, in some instances, a gap in the publication of an issue or even making a journal inactive for a year or two.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both cases, the author attempts to understand a journal's emphasis as a means of identifying and reaching the intended audience (McGuigan & Russell, 2008). Once a manuscript is submitted to a journal it is the job of the editor to determine the fit with the journal emphasis and potential interest to the readership (i.e., the intended audience) (Rojewski & Domenico, 2004;Solomon, 2007;Ware & Mabe, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sharing New Knowledge: A Review of Dissemination Rates and Journal Emphasis in Career and Technical Education

Hernandez-Gantes¹

2018

Journal of Research in Technical Careers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In career and technical education (CTE), the role of academic journals has been critical in the dissemination of information as the field shifted from vocational education to CTE. To keep up with changes in the field, some journals have been renamed to reflect the new emphasis, other journals have retained their historical branding, and new journals have emerged. Thus, the purpose of this descriptive research was to review the typology and dissemination rates of journals currently available in CTE as a means to clarify their role and impact in the field. The review resulted in the identification of 17 journals mediating the diffusion of research information in the United States and internationally. Further, over the past 10 years (2008-2017), a consistent rate of dissemination was observed as a whole, but variable for individual journals. In general, considering the overall pool, scope, and emphasis relevant to different audiences, it appears that journals in the field represent a consistent diffusion model to make research information readily accessible for a variety of purposes.

show abstract

Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

Griffin

Barczak

2020

AMS Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer reviewed academic journals, like AMS Review, live and die by their ability to obtain high quality reviews of submitted manuscripts. However, academics are increasingly pressed for time, needing to publish their research, teach their classes, and provide service to their Department, Faculty/College and University to support their careers in terms of retention, tenure, and promotion. Amidst these responsibilities, as a service to the Academy, academics also are expected to provide reviews of manuscripts in order to move the intellectual trajectory of the domain forward. High quality reviewing, though, takes cognitive energy and is time consuming, which then interferes with other academic responsibilities. For these reasons, editors of peerreviewed academic journals are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a sufficient number of high-quality reviews to make good decisions about submissions in a timely manner. The purpose of this article is to help all reviewers, but especially those reviewing conceptual articles, provide a high-quality review. Specifically, this article first defines what constitutes a "high quality review," and suggests how reviewing can aid an academic's own research, writing and career. It then defines the behaviors needed for effective reviewing for all manuscripts, termed the 5 R's: roles, responsibilities, responses, reactions, and respect. It then provides a reviewing template for conceptual articles, given the special difficulties of peer reviewing such articles, and closes with a few additional pieces of advice to help with being efficient in reviewing, while being effective.

show abstract

The Art and Politics of Peer Review

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas

The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas

Sharing New Knowledge: A Review of Dissemination Rates and Journal Emphasis in Career and Technical Education

Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About