MONA 98765-12871 CALL GIRLS IN LUDHIANA LUDHIANA CALL GIRL
Djim workshop on peer review 2012
1. DJIM workshop
on Peer Review
Lara Killian (MA, MLIS 2010)
Journal of Library Innovation
(JOLI) Peer Reviewer, 2010-2012
DJIM Past Editorial Co-Chair
2008-2010 (Volumes 5 & 6)
19 Jan 2012
lara.killian@dal.ca
2. Why peer review?
Looks excellent on a résumé
Can help you evaluate your own work, keep
a better eye on overall coherence of
arguments, flow of writing
Gives you the opportunity to network within
the Faculty and get to know the review
process before you graduate and enter the
professional world where you may need or
want to publish in the future
3. Peer review @ DJIM:
Peer review is not copy editing
Professionally
evaluate a colleague's work
using clear guidelines, and contribute
constructive feedback
Reviewers should be familiar with
standard of previous content (read past
issues of DJIM!)
4. Peer review aka “blind review”
The peer review process, for DJIM’s
purposes, is anonymous (“blind review”)
One faculty member and two current
students review each submission
Reviewer should not know whose work they
are reviewing
Author should not know who is reviewing their
work
Everything goes through the editorial board
5. Peer reviewers can always…
Ask editorial board for guidance or
clarification
Express concern that they may have
inadvertently discovered author identity
Request help with completing the peer review
feedback form clearly and completely so the
author will benefit from the process
6. Editorial board support
Editorial
staff have already screened for
adherence to submission guidelines
Eachsubmission should already have the
necessary components
Peer reviewers can focus on central
question: Is this submission suitable for
publication?
7. Peer review is not copy editing
Try to leave typos and grammar alone –
unless they interfere with comprehension
Focus on the big picture: Is the article suitable
for publication or not?
Consult guidelines provided by editorial
board throughout the process, provide
meaningful feedback for author and to let
editorial board why you made the
recommendation to publish (or not)
8. Consider:
Does the title describe the submission’s
scope?
Does the abstract summarize the content?
Is the content clearly organized?
Is the writing understandable to students at
the graduate level of your field?
9. Consider questions such as:
Are arguments made in the submission sound and
reasonable, based on your knowledge of the
field?
Are arguments well supported by the evidence
presented?
If the submission contains statistical evaluation, are
all statistical techniques identified and, when
appropriate, referenced?
Is the conclusion relevant to the arguments of the
submission, and interesting to readers?
10. Red flags
Unsupported statements
Abstract subject, vagueness (reader can’t
grasp the meaning)
Passive voice, weak or repetitive verbs
Lack of clarity
Wordiness, lack of conciseness
Official style (high diction, ponderous
nouns, strings of prepositions)
Inanity, superficiality, superfluousness
www.brandeis.edu/.../uwsexercises/peer-review-exercises.doc
12. Time commitment (step 1)
Set aside adequate time to read the
submission through completely, rather than
piece by piece
If you must leave the submission partway
through and return to it, re-read at least the
introductory section to be sure you remember
what the author’s intentions were
Do the author a favor and really pay
attention, offer constructive feedback
13. Time commitment (step 2)
Come back to the submission a day or a week
later and review all of the text as well as your
comments on the peer review feedback form
Are your comments or questions still clear and
easy to understand?
Do you clearly indicate where in the submission
you are referring to? If you can’t find where you
meant, the author will also have trouble
If you can’t follow your own comments a few days
later, the author won’t understand them either
14. Sample feedback:
DJIM 2012 Peer Review Form
Please attach a Word document assessing the proposed article on the
following criteria by assigning a rank of 1-5, where
1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Very Good, and 5=Outstanding
Relevance to Interdisciplinary Management:
Originality of the Topic:
Significance of the Topic:
Methodology:
Theoretical Grounding:
Adequate Reference to Existing Literature:
Choose One:
Recommended for publication:
as is / with minor changes (please describe below) / with major changes
(please describe below) OR Not recommended for publication
Comments to the Author:
Major contributions/strengths of the article:
Weaknesses of the article:
Suggestions for changes:
15. Giving feedback (1)
Be very specific when pointing out issues
to the author
Simply
noting “unclear” or “?” as a note
about a particular section is unhelpful
Imagine
yourself as the author – do you
have enough guidance to revise your
work?
16. Giving feedback (2)
Ask questions (give page & para # for location)
like:
“Do you mean X? Or do you mean Y?”
“I don’t understand what you mean by X; could
you clarify?”
Make comments such as
“Here it sounds like you’re saying X, when on page
# you wrote [something contradictory]; please
clarify.”
“This idea would be better included on page #
where you talk about [something related].”
“This section is extraneous to your main argument;
consider omitting.”
17. Problems?
Anystumbling blocks or areas of
concern, contact the DJIM editorial
board right away!
Ifyou’re not sure what to do, and wait
until the last minute, the board is delayed
in returning content to the author
Be professional, observe timeline
