Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal- Article Publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals--William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke--to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. (Contains 3 notes.)

Re-visioning the Queensland Youth Sector : principles to inform the Queensland Government's youth strategy and review process

This discussion paper has been provided to assist the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (DOCCSDS) in developing the Queensland Government’s Youth Strategy and inform the review of state government funded youth services. The paper lists a number of key concepts and social determinants which need to be considered in this undertaking. Additionally, it proposes a number key concepts and principles pertinent to understanding and working with young people, and for quality youth service provision.

Inquiring into Non-Accidental Child Deaths: Reviewing the Review Process

There is significant public and professional interest in the non-accidental death of children where abuse and neglect are suspected of being contributory factors. Systems for reviewing these deaths have been developed in each of the four jurisdictions within the UK. The main aims are to ensure that individuals and professionals are held to account if practice falls below the expected standard, whilst also seeking to strengthen the systems for protecting children through reflecting on what lessons, if any, can be learnt from the death of a child through abuse or neglect. Recently, the benefit of such inquiries and the quality of serious case reviews have come under scrutiny. In this paper, the authors report the findings of a Delphi study that sought to explore how the process of conducting reviews following the death of a child could be improved through seeking the views of experienced professionals responsible for child protection in Northern Ireland. The authors conclude that the system does command professional support, but could be improved through greater attention to process issues and a stronger emphasis on translating learning into action. In common with research looking at other recent practice developments, there is a need to focus on process indicators as a means to ensuring that well intentioned policies are translated into workable and functioning practices.

The Conference Review Process

This presentation is for students on the 3rd year ECS Multimedia course where students run their own conference, and submit and review papers. In this presentation we explain the academic review process, look at the structure of a review, and give some examples of positive and negative reviews.

Report on activities at the Caribbean subregional level relating to the Beijing + 5 review process for the CDCC meeting

Among the recommendations on institutional arrangements, the Beijing Platform for Action specifically mandates the regional commissions to promote and assist the pertinent national institutions in monitoring and implementing the global Platform for Action. In fulfilling this mandate and in contributing to the Beijing +5 review process, the ECLAC Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean developed a “Beijing Five-Year Review” project which aimed at providing technical assistance to the governments in the subregion; research into the progress made towards gender mainstreaming and convening the Third Subregional Conference on Women.

Regulatory reform - the review process.

Mode of access: Internet.

A water quality information system in support of the state of Illinois standards review process /

Cover title.

Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal- article publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals - William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke - to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. Copyright © by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.