The Development of an On-line Submission and Peer Review System

Online submission and peer review is emerging as the next step forward for many journal publishers in an ever increasing drive to take advantage of technological improvements in transferring data electronically over the internet. The Electronic Submission and PEer REview (ESPERE) project was initiated in 1996 as an electronic Libraries (eLib) initiative of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Subsequently the project continued as a self-funding group composed of a consortium of learned society and commercial journal publishers intent on utilising the changes in technology to improve the services they provide to their authors as well as cutting their costs and increasing efficiencies.

Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students' views

Self- and peer-assessment are being used increasingly in higher education, to help assign grades to students' work and to help students to learn more effectively. However, in spite of this trend there is little in the published literature on how students view these methods. In this paper we present an analysis of the views of a large number of students (N = 233) who had just experienced self- and peer-feedback as part of one of their subjects. It is a rarely questioned commonplace in the literature that in order to gain benefit from peer and self-assessment schemes students first need training in the specific scheme being used; ideally they will play a role in devising the scheme. The intervention reported here, which involved a large (N = 233) group of students, included no such measures. The results show that students felt, nonetheless, that they benefited from the intervention. The results also present prima facie evidence that training or other measures to further involve the students in the peer and self-assessment scheme might be beneficial. Our analysis of students' views revealed eight general dimensions under which are grouped twenty higher order themes. The results both support and extend previous research and give a more detailed picture than previously available. The general dimensions found were: Difficult; Gained Better Understanding of Marking; Discomfort; Productive (including learning benefits and improved work); Problems with Implementation; Read Others' Work; Develop Empathy (with assessing staff); and, Motivation (especially motivation to impress peers). The practical implications of these findings are discussed.

INFO2009 Reviews Partners, Commentary and Peer Review

guidance notes on review and evaluation processes. Part of the total handin required See also http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/9937/ for use in context and http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/9911/ for the guidance on the critical friend review process

Citation and peer review of data: moving towards formal data publication

This paper discusses many of the issues associated with formally publishing data in academia, focusing primarily on the structures that need to be put in place for peer review and formal citation of datasets. Data publication is becoming increasingly important to the scientific community, as it will provide a mechanism for those who create data to receive academic credit for their work and will allow the conclusions arising from an analysis to be more readily verifiable, thus promoting transparency in the scientific process. Peer review of data will also provide a mechanism for ensuring the quality of datasets, and we provide suggestions on the types of activities one expects to see in the peer review of data. A simple taxonomy of data publication methodologies is presented and evaluated, and the paper concludes with a discussion of dataset granularity, transience and semantics, along with a recommended human-readable citation syntax.

Faculty Instructional Quality Assessment Practices Incorporating Teaching Portfolios and Peer Review with Student Course Evaluations

Program directors and department chairs require different means of assessing faculty quality due to the unreliability of student course evaluation data. This report outlines alternative strategies for review committees to assess faculty instructional quality. This report also details incorporation of annual performance reviews for tenure-track faculty into tenure decisions.

Scientific Journals, Peer Review and How to Write a Great Research Paper

Recording of the Elsevier Author Seminar by Dr Anthony Newman and Michaela Kurschildgen.

Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

The quantification of uncertainty is an increasingly popular topic, with clear importance for climate change policy. However, uncertainty assessments are open to a range of interpretations, each of which may lead to a different policy recommendation. In the EQUIP project researchers from the UK climate modelling, statistical modelling, and impacts communities worked together on ‘end-to-end’ uncertainty assessments of climate change and its impacts. Here, we use an experiment in peer review amongst project members to assess variation in the assessment of uncertainties between EQUIP researchers. We find overall agreement on key sources of uncertainty but a large variation in the assessment of the methods used for uncertainty assessment. Results show that communication aimed at specialists makes the methods used harder to assess. There is also evidence of individual bias, which is partially attributable to disciplinary backgrounds. However, varying views on the methods used to quantify uncertainty did not preclude consensus on the consequential results produced using those methods. Based on our analysis, we make recommendations for developing and presenting statements on climate and its impacts. These include the use of a common uncertainty reporting format in order to make assumptions clear; presentation of results in terms of processes and trade-offs rather than only numerical ranges; and reporting multiple assessments of uncertainty in order to elucidate a more complete picture of impacts and their uncertainties. This in turn implies research should be done by teams of people with a range of backgrounds and time for interaction and discussion, with fewer but more comprehensive outputs in which the range of opinions is recorded.

Making Learning Visible: Peer Review and the Scholarship of Teaching

This is the promotional brochure from the March 2004 national conference, Making Learning Visible: Peer Review and the Scholarship of Teaching. This conference was hosted by the UNL Peer Review of Teaching project and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.