Reviewing the review: An assessment of dissertation reviewer feedback quality

Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Lehan, Tara ^a   Hussey, Heather ^a   Mika, Eva ^a  

^a Northcentral University   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Dissertation; Distance; Feedback; Quality; Reviewer

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964890423     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14499789     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Aceme, N 2014. Postgraduate research methodological flaws detected at the final examination stage: Who is to blame?. South African Journal of Science, vol. 110, no. 3/4, pp. 14-20.
2. Bair, M A & Mader, C M 2013. Academic writing at the graduate level: Improving the curriculum through collaboration. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-12.
3. Basturkmen, H, East, M & Bitchener, J 2014. Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 432-445.
4. Barnes, B J & Austin, A E 2008. The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor’s perspective. Innovations in Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 297-315.
5. Bitchener, J & Basturkmen, H 2010. The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/ dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 79-97.
6. Black, N, van Rooven, S, Godlee, F, Smith, R & Evans, S 1998. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal. JAMA, vol. 280, no. 3, pp. 231-233.
7. Bloomberg, L D & Volpe, M 2012. Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end (2nd ed.), Sage, Los Angeles.
8. Boote, D N & Beile, P 2005. Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 3-15.
9. Caligiuri, P & Thomas, D C 2013. From the editors: How to write a high-quality review. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 44, pp. 547-553.
10. Cassuto, L 2012. The adviser and the committee. Viewed at http://chronicle.com/ article/The-Adviserthe-Committee/132841/.
11. Donaldson, M R, Hasler, C T, Hanson, K C, Clark, T D, Hinch, S G & Cooke, SJ 2010. Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: A case study of ecology journals. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 3, pp. 1-7.
12. East, M, Bitchener, J & Basturkmen, H 2012. What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-16.
13. Ellis, T J, & Levy, Y 2008. Framework for problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 11, pp. 17-33.
14. Eysenbach, G, & Till, J E 2001. Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, vol. 323, no. 7321, pp. 1103-1105.
15. Gall, M D, Borg, W R & Gall, J P 1996. Education research: An introduction (6th ed.), Longman, White Plains, NY.
16. Kumar, S, Johnson, M & Hardemon, T 2013. Dissertations at a distance: Students’ perceptions of online mentoring in a doctoral program. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, vol. 27, no. 1.
17. Kumar, V, & Stracke, E 2007. An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 461-470.
18. Kwan, B S C 2013. Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond: A Hong Kong-based study. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 207-225.
19. Lee, T W, & Mitchell, T R 2011. Working in research teams: Lessons from personal experiences. Management and Organization Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 461-469.
20. Lepak, D 2009. Editor’s comments: What is good reviewing? Academy of Management Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 375-381.
21. Lovitts, B E 2005. How to grade a dissertation. Academe, vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 18-23.
22. Min, K S 2014. 2 Journal of Business Research, vol. 67, pp. 1967-1970.
23. Nelson, J S, Range, L M, & Ross, M B 2012. A checklist to guide graduate students’ writing. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 376-382.
24. Onitilo, A A, Engel, J M, Salzman-Scott, S A, & Doi, S A R 2014. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review. Accountability in Research, vol. 21, pp. 109-121.
25. Ronau, R N, Rakes, C R, Bush, S B, Driskell, S O, Niess, M L, & Pugalee, D K 2014. A survey of mathematics education technology dissertation scope and quality: 1968-2009. American Education Research Journal, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 974-1006.
26. Rosenfeld, R M 2010. How to review journal manuscripts. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 142, no. 4, pp. 472-488.
27. Schroter, S, Black, N, Evans, S, Carpenter, J, Godlee, F, & Smith, R 2004. Effects on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, vol. 328, no. 7441, pp. 1-5.
28. Schoroter, S, Tite, L, Hutchings, A, & Black, N 2006. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or editors. JAMA, vol. 295, no. 3, pp. 314-317.
29. Snell, L, & Spencer, J 2005. Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, vol. 39, pp. 90-97.
30. Suls, J, & Martin, R 2009. The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 40-51.
31. Szekely, T, Kruger, O, & Krause, E T 2014. Errors in science: The role of reviewers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 371-373.