Massive Open Online Course management: learning science and engineering through peer-reviewed projects

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) are gaining prominence in transversal teaching-learning strategies. However, there are many issues still debated, namely assessment, recognized largely as a cornerstone in Education. The large number of students involved requires a redefinition of strategies that often use approaches based on tasks or challenging projects. In these conditions and due to this approach, assessment is made through peer-reviewed assignments and quizzes online. The peer-reviewed assignments are often based upon sample answers or topics, which guide the student in the task of evaluating peers. This chapter analyzes the grading and evaluation in MOOCs, especially in science and engineering courses, within the context of education and grading methodologies and discusses possible perspectives to pursue grading quality in massive e-learning courses.

Open minded and open access: introducing NeoBiota, a new peer-reviewed journal of biological invasions

The Editorial presents the focus, scope, policies, and the inaugural issue of NeoBiota, a new open access peer-reviewed journal of biological invasions. The new journal NeoBiota is a continuation of the former NEOBIOTA publication series. The journal will deal with all aspects of invasion biology and impose no restrictions on manuscript size neither on use of color. NeoBiota implies an XML-based editorial workflow and several cutting-edge innovations in publishing and dissemination, such as semantic markup of and enhancements to published texts, data publication, and extensive cross-linking within the journal and to external sources

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

MountainNotes Becomes MountainAgenda: MRD's Third Peer-reviewed Section

Editorial

Can open access repositories and peer-reviewed journals coexist?

It is often assumed that open access repositories and peer-reviewed journals are in competition with each other and therefore will in the long term be unable to coexist. This paper takes a critical look at that assumption. It draws on the available evidence of actual practice which indicates that coexistence is possible at least in the medium term. It discusses possible future models of publication and dissemination which include open access, repositories, peer review and journals. The paper suggests that repositories and journals may coexist in the long term but that both may have to undergo significant changes. Important areas where changes need to occur include: widespread deployment of repository infrastructure, development of version identification standards, development of value-added features, new business models, new approaches to quality control and adoption of digital preservation as a repository function.

The tension between academic knowledge production and online peer production

Peer-reviewed

Efficient Peer Selection in P2P JXTA-Based Platforms

Peer-reviewed

An Experimental Study on Peer Selection in a P2P Network over PlanetLab

Peer-reviewed

Privacy-Aware Peer-to- Peer Content Distribution Using Automatically Recombined Fingerprints

Peer-reviewed

Security, Privacy and Anonymity in Legal Distribution of Copyrighted Multimedia Content over Peer-to-Peer Networks: A Brief Overview

Peer-reviewed

Secure and Anonymous Multimedia Content Distribution in Peer-to-Peer Networks

Peer-reviewed

Evolving student–faculty partnerships in medical education through peer-assisted learning

Peer reviewed

An evaluation of an online peer support forum for university students with depressive symptoms

Background: Depression is the most common mental health problem among young people, particularly university students, with prevalence rates as high as 48% reported. This population however, is reluctant to seek professional help. Online interventions may be particularly appealing to students, with evidence suggesting that they use the Internet for mental health support. While there are many mental health resources on the Internet few focus specifically on the needs of young people and few have been evaluated. This research aimed to develop and pilot test an online peer support intervention for students experiencing depressive symptoms. Methods: A depression support Web site (www.losetheblues.ie) was designed specifically for 18-24. year old students. The study used a mixed method, involving quantitative descriptive, pre- and post-test and qualitative descriptive designs. Data were collected using the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), a background questionnaire and online forum posts. Results: The sample consisted of 117 university students with self-reported depressive symptoms. Results from participants in the pre- and post-test element of the study, showed no statistical significance. The forum posts revealed that the participants' main difficulties were loneliness and perceived lack of socialization skills. The Web site provided a place for sharing, offering and receiving emotional and informational support. Conclusion: Developing health care interventions in an online environment presents unique challenges to the research process, however they have the potential to provide mental health care that is accessible and affordable.