Negotiation on the assessment of research articles with academic reviewers: Application of peer-review approach of teaching

Higher Education

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 315-332

  Kumar, Prashant ^a   Rafiq, Imran ^a   Imam, Boulent ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Academic reviewers; Articles evaluation; Peer review negotiation; Publishing research; Teaching, learning and research

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051672317     PISSN: 00181560     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-010-9390-y     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Aarssen, L. W., Tregenza, T., Budden, A. E., Lortie, C. J., Koricheva, J., & Leimu, R. (2008). Bang for your buck: Rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. The Open Ecology Journal, 1, 14-19.
2. Aarssen, L. W., Lortie, C. J., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Leimu, R., et al. (2009). Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior? PLoS ONE, 7(7), e6283. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0006283.
3. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguine Books.
4. Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process-the proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331-338.
5. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(2), 198-216.
6. Bornmann, L. (2008). Scientific peer review. An analysis of the peer review process from the perspective of sociology of science theories. Human Architecture. Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 6(2), 23-38.
7. Bornmann, L. (2010). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (in press).
8. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415-432.
9. Boyer, L. E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegic Foundation for the advancement of Teaching.
10. Buelens, M., van De Woestyne, M., Mestdagh, S., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2008). Methodological issues in negotiation research: A state-of-the-art-review. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 321-345.
11. Carrió, I. (2008). Of impact, metrics and ethics. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 35, 1049-1050.
12. Courneya, C.-A., Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. (2008). Through what perspective do we judge the teaching of peers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 69-79.
13. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Association of Physcis Teachers, 69, 970-977.
14. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-271.
15. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Edication, 24(3), 331-344.
16. Ferguson, I. B. (2003). Publishing papers in international journals. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A, 4(2), I-IV.
17. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Hargens, L. L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53, 139-151.
19. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS, 102, 16569-16572.
20. Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Association of Physics Teachers, 76(11), 1066-1069.
21. Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 26-259.
22. Linhares, G. B. R., Borges, M. R. S., & Antunes, P. (2009). Negotiation-collaboration in formal technical reviews. In L. Carriço, N. Baloian, & B. Fonseca (Eds.), CRIWG 2009, LNCS 5784 (pp. 344-356).
23. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiation: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quaterly, 28(4), 745-769.
24. Mittan, R. (1986). The peer review process: Harnessing students' communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). White Plains, NY: Longman.
25. Quinlan, K. M. (2002). Inside the peer review process: How academics review a colleague's teaching portfolio. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 1035-1049.
26. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
27. Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42-46.
28. Sahnoun, M. H., & Zarai, M. A. (2009). Auditor-auditee negotiation outcome: Effects of auditee business risk, audit risk, and auditor business risk in Tunisian context. Corporate Governance, 17(5), 559-572.
29. Southgate, D. A. T. (1991). Editorial: Reasons for rejection. British Journal of Nutrition, 65, 319-320.
30. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
31. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 146-169.
32. Vetschera, R. (2006). Preference structures of negotiators and negotiation outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 111-125.
33. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student learning. TESOL Quaterly, 19, 79-101.