VCSEwiki:Peer review: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
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 [[review form for case studies]]
 


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


Paper title:
Paper title:
Line 68: Line 69:
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]
445

edits