Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process

Higher Education Research and Development

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 853-868

  Dobele, A R ^a  

^a RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

higher education; peer review; progression; publish or perish; Scholar

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942982256     PISSN: 07294360     EISSN: 14698366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1011086     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. K.L.Becker, (2010). Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(3), 251–268. doi: 10.1108/09534811011049590
2. R.M.Berko,, A.D.Wolvin,, & R.Curtis, (1993). This business of communicating. Madison, WI: WCB Brown & Benchmark.
3. L.Bornmann,, & H.-D.Daniel, (2010). ‘Reliability of reviewers’ ratings when using public peer-review: A case study. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 124–131. doi: 10.1087/20100207
4. L.Bornmann,, & L.Egghe, (2012). Journal peer-review as an information retrieval process. Journal of Documentation, 68(4), 527–535. doi: 10.1108/00220411211239093
5. D.Bradley, (2008). Review of Australian higher education. Message from the Chair. Retrieved 20 October, 2008, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/reviews/highered_review/
6. B.J.Calder,, L.W.Phillips,, & A.M.Tybout, (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197–207. doi: 10.1086/208856
7. J.M.Campanario, (1998a). Peer-review for journals as it stands today – part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181–211. doi: 10.1177/1075547098019003002
8. J.M.Campanario, (1998b). Peer-review for journals as it stands today – part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277–306. doi: 10.1177/1075547098019004002
9. T.Cutler, (2008). Venturous Australia: Building strength in innovation. Review of the National Innovation System. Canberra: Australian Government.
10. B.Delahaye,, & B.Smith, (1998). How to be an effective trainer. Brisbane: John Wiley.
11. A.N.DeMaria, (2002). Peer-review: Better than the alternatives. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 40(5), 1017–1018. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02087-9
12. DEST. (2005). Research quality framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia: Department of Education Science and Training, March.
13. A.Dobele,, S.Rundle-Thiele,, & F.Kopanidis, (2014). ‘The cracked glass ceiling: Equal work but unequal status’, Higher Education Research & Development. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2013.841654#.U04Aw6iSxgg
14. M.Eisenhart, (2002). The Paradox of peer-review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education, 32(2), 241–255. doi: 10.1023/A:1016082229411
15. F.Godlee,, & T.Jefferson, (2003). Peer-review in health sciences. London: BMJ.
16. I.Hames, (2007). Peer-review and manuscript management in scientific journals. Oxford: Blackwell.
17. D.Harley,, & A.S.Krzys, (2011). Peer-review in academic promotion and publishing: Its meaning, locus, and future. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
18. N.Hartley,, & A.Dobele, (2009). Feathers in the nest: Establishing a supportive environment for women researchers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(1), 43–58. doi: 10.1007/BF03216891
19. J.Hattie,, & H.Timperley, (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
20. N.R.Henderson, (1995). A practical approach to analyzing and reporting focus group studies: Lessons from qualitative market research. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 463–477. doi: 10.1177/104973239500500407
21. M.B.Holbrook, (1986). A note on sadomasochism in the review process: I hate when that happens. The Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 104–108. doi: 10.2307/1251588
22. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2011). Peer-review in scientific publications. London: The Stationery Office.
23. D.Houston,, L.H.Meyer,, & S.Paewai, (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17–30. doi: 10.1080/13600800500283734
24. D.F.Hultsch,, S.W.S.MacDonald,, M.A.Hunter,, S.B.Maitland,, & R.A.Dixon, (2002). Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 345–359. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000247
25. K.Hyland, (2011). Welcome to the machine: Thoughts on writing for scholarly publication. Journal of Second Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 58–68. doi: 10.5420/jsltr.01.01.3319
26. T.Jefferson,, E.Wager,, & F.Davidoff, (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer-review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2786–2790. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
27. S.Kolowich, (2011). Killing peer-review. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/19/debate_over_whether_social_web_sites_can_replace_peer_review
28. R.K.Kravitz,, P.Franks,, M.S.Feldman,, M.Gerrity,, C.Byrne,, & W.M.Tierney, (2010). ‘Editorial peer-reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care?’ PloS ONE, 5(4), article e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072
29. R.A.Kruegar, (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30. K.P.Kuchinke, (2000). The role of feedback in management training settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 381–491. doi: 10.1002/1532-1096(200024)11:4<381::AID-HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-3
31. L.Langfeldt, (2006). The policy challenges of peer-review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 31–41. doi: 10.3152/147154406781776039
32. D.M.Maggin,, S.M.Chafouleas,, M.Berggren,, & G.Sugai, (2013). A systematic appraisal of peer-review guidelines for special education journals. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 21(2), 87–102. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2012.747181
33. K.Malterud, (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483–488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
34. A.McCarthy,, & T.Garavan, (2006). Postfeedback development perceptions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(3), 245–267. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1173
35. J.Mercer, (2013). Responses to rejection: The experiences of six women early career researchers in the education department of an English university. Women's Studies International Forum, 38(38), 125–134. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2013.03.008
36. C.C.Miller, (2006). Peer-review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425–431. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794661
37. R.H.Mulder, (2013). Perceptions of quality of feedback in organizations: Characteristics, determinants, outcomes of feedback, and possibilities for improvement: Introduction to a special issue. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 4–23. doi: 10.1108/03090591311293266
38. C.Musselin, (2013). How peer-review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy, 42(5), 1165–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.002
39. T.S.Rocco,, & J.C.Collins, (2012). The nature of peer-review: Confessions of a formerly-good reviewer and observations of an emerging scholar. Human Resource Development International, 15(4), 395–397. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.708605
40. J.Rowbotham, (2010, November 3). Research assessment to remain unchanged for second round. The Australian Higher Education Supplement. Australia, The Australian. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/research-assessment-to-remain-unchanged-for-second-round/story-e6frgcjx-1225946924155
41. D.M.Schultz, (2010a). Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, 84(2), 277–292. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0084-0
42. D.M.Schultz, (2010b). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(2), 231–243. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1
43. B.Simons-Morton,, A.F.Abraido-Lanza,, J.M.Bernhardt,, A.Schoenthaler,, A.Schnitzer,, & J.P.Allegrante, (2012). Demystifying peer-review. Health Education & Behavior, 39(1), 3–7. doi: 10.1177/1090198111433309
44. L.Souder, (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer-review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1), 55–72. doi: 10.1087/20110109
45. S.Spiggle, (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503. doi: 10.1086/209413
46. W.H.Starbuck, (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer-reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 344–351. doi: 10.1177/1056492603258972
47. M.Taras, (2010). Student self-assessment: Processes and consequences. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 199–209. doi: 10.1080/13562511003620027
48. M.Taras, (2013). Feedback on feedback: Uncrossing wires across sectors. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education (pp. 30–40). London: Routledge.
49. N.Venketasubramanian,, & M.G.Hennerici, (2012). How to handle a rejection: Special report. Teaching course presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Cerebrovascular Diseases, 209–212.
50. R.Watson, (2012). Peer-review under the spotlight in the UK. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(4), 718–720. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05932.x
51. A.C.Weller, (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(1), 115.