Question: Interesting question from Airina Volungeviciene
whether the published research can be tagged in some way (like with xAPI or
similar but than connected to bridge theory to practical) in order to see how
applicable the research is, whether it is implemented and how. Some indicators
to see the impact of science.
No clear answer to that from the editors (Dianne Conrad, Jill Buban,
Josep Duart, Som Naidu) (yet). I would like to see this happen, also in other areas. Aaron Silvers, what do you
think would this be possible.
Question from Marti Cleveland-Innes: increasing fear for
reviewing articles, editing journals… how can this become more possible given
the increased time shortage. And can you give a notion of who reviews your
articles, how do you choose reviewers.
Answer: (Diane Conrad) you hit the nail on the head, it is a
major fallacy of peer-review. We rate reviewers and than evaluate whether they
can stay on as reviewer. We assign 4 reviewers to every article (in the hope 2
will respond).
(Som Naidu): we are editors for our academic responsibility.
And universities do not reward people for doing reviews! Academics might be
given awards for that type of work. There is a process for each reviewer, and
if reviewers do not respond than they come out. A full professor is the
busiest, and they almost do not respond. So we choose reviewers who are early
in their academic career.
(Josep Duart). We collect as much information as possible in
terms of their expertise, so we have a good profile of them as academics in
their field.
Question: George Veletsianos: could you give feedback to the
authors on how to respond to ‘minor or major’ revisions.
Answer: (Diane Conrad) it is upon the reviewer to make
sensible comments that support the review suggestion. The feedback needs to
provide support for the decision made by the reviewer.
(Som Naidu) I look at the reports and filter them if they
are too different before sending them to the author. And than provide the
author with the option of what the author can do, making it possible to the
author to enter into a constructive conversation.
Question: how can we get published
(Diane Conrad) Most common reasons for rejection:
Turn it in is used, and its reports.
We look at the scope of the research for the journal
Issue of the research with little importance, specifically
to our readership
There is always something out there on any topic… never
think there is not. (we prescreen
articles before sending them to reviewers)
Make an article understandable right from the abstracts.
Abstracts should be written after the article, and be VERY precise, including
the conclusions!
If the research is old, probably not accepted, use up to
date research.
Use up to date literature
Do not republish, we have seen it before makes it
unpublishable.
Question: how do you handle contradictory reviews
There always are more opinions, and it can be depressing to
see how different equal experts give different reviews and decisions.
Each review is different, so as an editor I choose what goes
out and what does not go out.
I consider the quality of the reviews, and the quality of
the reviewer. I might send it to another reviewer, or take a personal decision
as an expert myself (Diane)
If one decline is suggested by reviewers, I do not publish
it.
Some reviews are not up to snuff, so I do look over the reviewer
comments.
There are a lot of subjective components in the editorship.
editors get not paid