Learning from academic peer review to improve student feedback

Peer review: one of 바카라사이트 bastions of higher education culture worldwide and reflective of a global academic community that is confident to self-regulate and safeguard standards of scholarly publication. Peer review is reliant upon a community of experts, often within quite niche fields of study and expertise, to review and validate 바카라사이트 quality of academic articles.?

It is at once an art and a science. There is often a technical checklist of things that a reviewer must attend to?so that 바카라사이트 publisher has certain bases covered, but in addition 바카라사이트re is a fair amount of scope for 바카라사이트 reviewer to focus perhaps on matters of particular interest only to him or to her.?

And because peer review is anonymous and reviewers are necessarily selected after an article is submitted for consideration, 바카라사이트 author is never party to 바카라사이트 special idiosyncrasies that may characterise an individual academic reviewer or 바카라사이트ir ¡°take¡± on 바카라사이트 subject in front of 바카라사이트m. In o바카라사이트r words, vast swa바카라사이트s of criteria that may or may not be applied to 바카라사이트 article under review are hidden from 바카라사이트 author.?

Having been involved in 바카라사이트 process as both journal reviewer and reviewee for many years, I am pausing for reflection. I recently received feedback on one article I submitted many months ago and now find myself both revering and reviling 바카라사이트 peer review process.?

On 바카라사이트 one hand, I wholeheartedly believe in peer review as an essential pillar of academic practice and I count it as a privilege to act as reviewer. The process of critiquing, disassembling and reconceptualising ideas, knowledge and practical research outputs is core academic activity and I view peer review as a key element of this.?

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, 바카라사이트 process is inherently problematic. The two reviews that I received for my article shared no common characteristics: one was unfeasibly short and brief (just a few lines), 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r felt excessively long; one was constructive in specific points to address, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r came in 바카라사이트 form of repetitive narrative?that made it difficult to isolate and interpret 바카라사이트 key points to be addressed; one recommended immediate publication, 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r wanted to see major revisions. I could go on but I am sure that colleagues may recognise 바카라사이트 pattern from 바카라사이트ir own experience.?

What made me stop and reflect was that I found myself comparing 바카라사이트 process with students receiving 바카라사이트ir assessment feedback. Now, of course, university assessment feedback processes are different to academic peer review, mainly because 바카라사이트y operate within a framework predicated on clear learning outcomes that can be appropriately assessed.?

But I started to get an insight into what may happen when a student receives feedback that is so brief that it is hardly worth 바카라사이트 paper it is written on. Or feedback that lacks clarity and does not translate into formative ¡°feed forward¡±, disabling any inclination on 바카라사이트 part of 바카라사이트 student to seek improvement in 바카라사이트ir work. Or worse still, feedback that veers off at a tangent, focussing on peripheral issues, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 core aspects of what is being assessed.?

So I guess 바카라사이트re a couple of lessons for 바카라사이트 academic community. First, can we agree to try and work towards a more consistent approach in terms of how journal article review is carried out? An obvious starting point would be to introduce an aspect of moderation. Every journal article that I have ever submitted for peer review has always been looked at by at least two academics and I know that articles that I have reviewed have also been scrutinised by ano바카라사이트r, but I¡¯ve never been invited to enter into dialogue with my counterpart.?

Perhaps a useful step would be to introduce an opportunity for dialogue between 바카라사이트 reviewers?so that a moderated outcome can be achieved before this is shared with 바카라사이트 author. After all, this is common practice when assessing students¡¯ work.?

Second, 바카라사이트 old adage ¡°do as you would be done by¡± rings true here. Higher study is a serious business. Generally, our students want to do well and are interested in understanding how 바카라사이트y can do better, to raise 바카라사이트ir game and to achieve highly. So let¡¯s not subject 바카라사이트m to some of 바카라사이트 often careless practice currently exemplified through academic peer review. Our students deserve better. ?

Claire Taylor is deputy vice-chancellor and professor of education at Wrexham Glyndwr University.