Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process

Dobele, A 2015, 'Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process', Higher Education Research and Development, pp. 1-16.

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: Journal Articles

Title Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process
Author(s) Dobele, A
Year 2015
Journal name Higher Education Research and Development
Start page 1
End page 16
Total pages 16
Publisher Routledge
Abstract The feedback provided to authors by reviewers as part of a double-blind peer-review process was examined for two Australian conferences, one special international edition book and six international special edition journals (originating in the UK). The research sought to identify consistency of decision-making and the effectiveness of feedback for authors, in terms of the amount written and the tone of comments. The recommendation of acceptance or rejection of papers under the peer-review process is generally consistent, with reviewers agreeing with each other more often than they disagree. The feedback provided is mostly constructive and designed to help authors with rewrites and resubmissions. However, the amount of written commentary provided by reviewers is limited and in one-third of cases, the reviewers disagreed with each other, which generates additional work for the trackchairs and editors. The findings suggest that while imperfect, the process requires policy and managerial changes if good-quality reviews are to be encouraged.
Subject Higher Education
Keyword(s) higher education
peer review
publish or perish
DOI - identifier 10.1080/07294360.2015.1011086
Copyright notice © 2015 HERDSA
ISSN 0729-4360
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 8 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Altmetric details:
Access Statistics: 158 Abstract Views  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 20 May 2015, 07:32:00 EST by Catalyst Administrator
© 2014 RMIT Research Repository • Powered by Fez SoftwareContact us