Peer review as developmental: Exploring the ripple effects of the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program
Peer review as developmental: Exploring the ripple effects of the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program
复制标题
同行评审作为发展：探索 JEE 指导评审员计划的连锁反应
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Mike Klassen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Karin J. Jensen;I. Direito;M. Polmear;T. Hattingh;Mike Klassen
在2019年秋季的社论中，JEE编辑丽莎本森反思了学术界的“角斗士氛围”，这种氛围可以通过同行评审过程来放大（本森，2019，第311页）。学术界可能会感觉像是一场持续不断的艰苦战斗，遭到挑剔的看门人的拒绝和批评。同行评审也不例外，尤其是在拒绝率高的期刊中，因为对工作和作者的有毒评论会雪上加霜（Silbiger & Stubler，2019）。但事情不一定非要这样。本森认为，同行评议“为相互鼓励和相互诋毁提供了充足的空间”（第311页）。通过强调同行评议在支持和指导作者方面的作用，它可以被用来为某一领域的学术做出贡献。为了实现这一目标，JEE于2019年推出了指导评审员计划（指导评审员计划，2020年），以指导新的或新手评审员（如研究生，博士后学者和工程教师）通过评审过程，导师在评审和撰写工程教育研究（EER）文章方面具有丰富的经验。在该计划中，学员在根据共同的专业领域和研究兴趣进行匹配后被分配给导师。在为期约6个月的计划中，导师和学员按照脚手架方法共同进行三次审查。该计划强调导师在如何指导学员通过同行评审过程，以及如何建设性的评论作为一种形式的导师，以帮助作者开发他们最好的工作，以加强EER社区的奖学金。我们作为一个团队撰写了这篇客座社论，并开始反思我们在JEE指导评审员计划的第一个产品中作为导师所学到的东西，以及我们作为评审员和研究人员是如何成长的。我们分享了我们的集体经验，并确定该计划对我们作为工程教育研究人员的身份以及我们对EER社区的贡献产生了积极影响。为了给我们的反思提供结构，我们将我们的经验纳入两个互补的框架：身份轨迹框架（McAlpine等人，2014年）和实践社区框架（Jesiek等人，2009）概念化我们在工程教育界不断变化的作用。在这篇社论中，我们首先解开同行评议对身份发展的影响，然后是社区发展。我们认为，该计划对我们的身份产生了积极的影响，工程教育研究人员和我们在EER社区的作用;我们观察到从JEE手稿的审查工作的具体背景下，我们更广泛的方法来研究和写作，与同事接触，并审查其他期刊和会议的涟漪效应。
In a Fall 2019 editorial, JEE editor Lisa Benson reflected on the “gladiatorial atmosphere” in academia that can be amplified by the peer review process (Benson, 2019, p. 311). Academia can feel like a constant uphill battle of rejections and criticisms from discerning gatekeepers. Peer review is no exception, especially in journals with high rejection rates, as toxic comments on both the work and the authors add insult to injury (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019). But it does not have to be this way. Benson argues that peer review “provides ample space for cheering each other on as well as tearing each other down” (p. 311). By emphasizing the role of peer review in supporting and mentoring authors, it can be leveraged to contribute to the scholarship of a field. Toward this goal, JEE launched the Mentored Reviewer Program (Mentored Reviewer Program, 2020) in 2019 to coach new or novice reviewers (such as graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and engineering faculty) through the review process with a mentor who has substantial experience in reviewing and writing engineering education research (EER) articles. In the program, mentees are assigned to a mentor after being matched based on common areas of expertise and research interests. During the program, which lasts approximately 6 months, mentors and mentees work together on three reviews, following a scaffolded approach. The program emphasizes mentorship both in how the mentees are coached through the peer review process and how constructive reviews serve as a form of mentorship to help authors develop their best work to strengthen the scholarship of the EER community. We wrote this guest editorial as a team and started by reflecting on what we learned as mentees in the first offering of the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program and how we have grown as reviewers and researchers. We shared our collective experiences and identified that the program has positively impacted our identities as engineering education researchers and our contributions to the EER community. To give structure to our reflections, we situate our experience in two complementary frameworks: the identity-trajectory framework (McAlpine et al., 2014) on an individual level and the community of practice framework (Jesiek et al., 2009) to conceptualize our changing role in the engineering education community. In this editorial, we first unpack the impact of peer review on identity development followed by community development. We argue that the program has had a positive impact on our identities as engineering education researchers and our role in the EER community; we observe a ripple effect from the specific context of working on reviews of JEE manuscripts to our broader approach to research and writing, engaging with colleagues, and reviewing for other journals and conferences.