scholarly journals Teaching and Learning Policy Review in Hong Kong and the U.S.

2000 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orlan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Student Ratings ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Teaching And Learning Quality ◽  
Quality Of Research

The Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) in hugely expanded universities in Britain and Hong Kong attempt mammoth scale ratings of "quality of research." If peer review on that scale is feasible for "quality of research," is it less so for "quality of teaching"? The lessons of the Hong Kong Teaching and Learning Quality Process Reviews (TLQPRs), of recent studies on the influence of grade expectation and workload on student ratings, of attempts to employ agency theory both to improve teaching quality and raise student ratings, and of institutional attempts to refine the peer review process, all suggest that we can "put teaching on the same footing as research" and include professional regard for teaching content and objectives, as well as student ratings of effectiveness and personality appeal, in the process.

scholarly journals Working in triads: A case study of a peer review process

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-44
Author(s):  
Peter Grainger ◽  
◽  
Martin Bridgstock ◽  
Todd Houston ◽  
Steve Drew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Teaching Practices ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Of Teaching

Peer review of teaching has become an accepted educational procedure in Australia to quality assure the quality of teaching practices. The institutional implementation of the peer review process can be viewed as genuine desire to improve teaching quality or an imposition from above as a measure of accountability and performativity. One approach is to conduct the peer review process as a team or a triad, involving a group of three academics. This article reviews this process of peer review through the eyes of the participants. The results of the study indicate that the peer review process upon which this study is based, has the potential to not only significantly impact academics’ pedagogy but to improve teaching confidence and associated benefits in regard to evidence based teaching for promotional opportunities.

scholarly journals ITEM ANALYSIS AND PEER-REVIEW EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC HEALTH PROBLEMS AND APPLIED RESEARCH BLOCK EXAMINATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Novi Maulina ◽  
Rima Novirianthy
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Item Analysis ◽  
Discrimination Index ◽  
Test Quality ◽  
Quality Feedback ◽  
Item Writer ◽  
Difficulty Index

Background: Assessment and evaluation for students is an essential component of teaching and learning process. Item analysis is the technique of collecting, summarizing, and using students’ response data to assess the quality of the Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) test by measuring indices of difficulty and discrimination, also distracter efficiency. Peer review practices improve quality of assessment validity in evaluating student performance.Method: We analyzed 150 student’s responses for 100 MCQs in Block Examination for its difficulty index (p), discrimination index (D) and distractor efficiency (DE) using Microsoft excel formula. The Correlation of p and D was analyzed using Spearman correlation test by SPSS 23.0. The result was analyzed to evaluate the peer-review strategy.Results: The median of difficulty index (p) was 54% or within the range of excellent level (p 40-60%) and the mean of discrimination index (D) was 0.24 which is reasonably good. There were 7 items with excellent p (40–60%) and excellent D (≥0.4). Nineteen of items had excellent discrimination index (D≥0.4). However,there were 9 items with negative discrimination index and 30 items with poor discrimination index, which should be fully revised. Forty-two of items had 4 functioning distracters (DE 0%) which suggested the teacher to be more precise and carefully creating the distracters.Conclusion: Based on item analysis, there were items to be fully revised. For better test quality, feedback and suggestions for the item writer should also be performed as a part of peer-review process on the basis of item analysis.

scholarly journals Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication and Scientific Publishing

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Bishnu Bahadur Khatri
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals Validitas Lembar Kerja Peserta Didik Berbasis Penemuan Terbimbing dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Pemahaman Konsep dan Kemampuan Penalaran Matematis

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 56
Author(s):  
Aan Putra ◽  
Hendra Syarifuddin ◽  
Zulfah Zulfah
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Mathematical Reasoning ◽  
Mathematical Concepts ◽  
Guided Discovery ◽  
Reasoning Abilities ◽  
Teaching And Learning Quality ◽  
Abstract Learning

Abstract. Learning equipment is important things that determine the quality of the learning process and output. We need a study about validity, practicality, and effectiveness of the learning equipment to ensure teaching and learning quality. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the validity of the learning equipment based on guided discovery, especially the students’ worksheets. This research was a descriptive qualitative research that provides the result of students’ worksheets and experts recommendation. The experts who validated these student’s worksheets were three experts on mathematics education. The instruments used in this study was the validation sheets for LKPD. The result of validation sheets analysis for LKPD showed that in general, the students’ worksheets were valid. The validity of the didactical aspect and contents aspect sequently were 0,667 dan 0,704. Keywords: students’ worksheets, guided discovery, mathematical concepts understanding, mathematical reasoning abilities Abstrak. Perangkat pembelajaran merupakan kelengkapan pelaksanaan proses pembelajaran yang sangat penting dan menentukan capaian proses dan hasil pembelajaran. Untuk menjamin kualitas perangkat pembelajaran, dibutuhkan kajian khusus untuk menilai validitas, praktikalitas dan efektifitas perangkat pembelajaran yang digunakan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menilai aspek validitas perangkat pembelajaran, khususnya Lembar Kerja Peserta Didik (LKPD) berbasis penemuan terbimbing yang digunakan dengan tujuan meningkatkan kemampuan pemahaman konsep dan penalaran matematis siswa. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif deskriptif yang menyajikan data hasil validasi dan saran validator terhadap validitas LKPD berbasis penemuan terbimbing. Validator terdiri dari tiga orang pakar pendidikan Matematika. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah lembar validasi LKPD. Hasil analisis terhadap lembar validasi menunjukkan bahwa secara umum LKPD memenuhi kriteria valid. Validitas aspek didaktik dan aspek isi berturut-turut adalah 0,667 dan 0,704. Kata Kunci: validitas lembar kerja peserta didik,  penemuan terbimbing, pemahaman konsep matematis, kemampuan penalaran matematis

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

scholarly journals Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035604
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
David Blanco ◽  
Roser Rius ◽  
Alessandro Recchioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Report Quality ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveTo develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments).ConclusionAssessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

scholarly journals Evaluation complacency or evaluation inertia? A study of evaluative metrics and research practices in Irish universities

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lai Ma ◽  
Michael Ladisch
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Social ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Quality Of Research

Abstract Evaluative metrics have been used for research assessment in most universities and funding agencies with the assumption that more publications and higher citation counts imply increased productivity and better quality of research. This study investigates the understanding and perceptions of metrics, as well as the influences and implications of the use of evaluative metrics on research practices, including choice of research topics and publication channels, citation behavior, and scholarly communication in Irish universities. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with researchers from the humanities, the social sciences, and the sciences in various career stages. Our findings show that there are conflicting attitudes toward evaluative metrics in principle and in practice. The phenomenon is explained by two concepts: evaluation complacency and evaluation inertia. We conclude that evaluative metrics should not be standardized and institutionalized without a thorough examination of their validity and reliability and without having their influences on academic life, research practices, and knowledge production investigated. We also suggest that an open and public discourse should be supported for the discussion of evaluative metrics in the academic community.

scholarly journals How to choose and become a reviewer for a scientific medical journal

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Paola Gnerre ◽  
Giorgio Vescovo ◽  
Paola Granata ◽  
Cecilia Politi ◽  
Andrea Fontanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Publication Delay ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Good Review

Peer review is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is a cornerstone of modern science and medicine. Some journals have difficulty in finding appropriate reviewers who are able to complete reviews on time avoiding publication delay. We discuss some of the main issues involved during the peer review process. The reviewer has a direct and important impact on the quality of a scientific medical Journal. Editors select reviewers on the basis of their expertise. Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. They should respond to ethical principles, excluding any conflict of interest condition. The reviewer has to be professional, constructive, tactful, empathetic and respectful. Structured approaches, quality indicators and step-by-step process check list formats could be useful in obtaining a good review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document