VCSEwiki:Peer review: Difference between revisions
m (Admin moved page Peer review to VCSEwiki:Peer review) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 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! | ||
** | *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: | ||
| Line 17: | 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 68: | 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:
- Analysis of evaluation reports of scientific papers: what referees say
- See also List of academic journals - select one and find out the rules!
- Example of the peer review form for case studies
- Read also Quality criteria
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