VCSEwiki:Peer review: Difference between revisions

From VCSEwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Admin moved page Peer review to VCSEwiki:Peer review)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
== Review process ==
== Review process - academic articles ==
 
*For the process of reviewing itself, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review Peer Review] in Wikipedia
For quality criteria, you can enter the Review process of some academic journals:
For quality criteria, you can enter the Review process of some academic journals:
*[http://www.cec-wys.org/prilohy/996055c0/What%20referees%20say.pdf Analysis of evaluation reports of scientific papers]: what referees say
*[http://www.cec-wys.org/prilohy/996055c0/What%20referees%20say.pdf Analysis of evaluation reports of scientific papers]: what referees say
**See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals List of academic journals] - select one and find out the rules!
**See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals List of academic journals] - select one and find out the rules!
**For the process of reviewing itself, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review Peer Review] in Wikipedia
*Example of the [[peer review form for case studies]]
*Read also [[Quality criteria]]


= Example of Review Form =
 
== Example of Review Form - research papers ==


Paper title:
Paper title:
 
Does the globalization of media lead to homogenization?


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Line 18: Line 19:
== 1. Basic criteria ==
== 1. Basic criteria ==


1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low)......................
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low)  


1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low)......................
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low)  


1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)......................
1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)


1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)......................
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)


== 2. Summary Comments for Author(s) ==
== 2. Summary Comments for Author(s) ==
Line 69: Line 70:
4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor
4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor


== Resource ==
=== Resource ===
Modified form of the [http://www.ise-lv.eu/publications.php?show=39&pub=3 JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY]
Modified form of the [http://www.ise-lv.eu/publications.php?show=39&pub=3 JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY]

Latest revision as of 11:38, 30 August 2017

Review process - academic articles

  • For the process of reviewing itself, see Peer Review in Wikipedia

For quality criteria, you can enter the Review process of some academic journals:


Example of Review Form - research papers

Paper title:


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Reviewer´s assessment:

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low)

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low)

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) ......................

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) ......................

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) ......................

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) .........................

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) .......................

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) ...........................

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) ....................

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) ....................

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) ....................

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No)..........

3. Written Comments for Author(s)

.....................................................................................

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):

4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor

Resource

Modified form of the JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY