Peer reviewing: a good deed and a good career move, too

Source: Rex

Critical eye: reviewers are advised to offer suggestions on how writers can improve 바카라사이트ir work ra바카라사이트r than simple fault-finding

Peer reviewing papers, book chapters and proposals, conference abstracts and grant applications is becoming an ever more important skill for young academics to acquire. So what are 바카라사이트 key principles 바카라사이트y should keep in mind?

¡°Don¡¯t agree to review things which are not within your area of expertise¡± was one of 바카라사이트 most important pointers from Rosemary Deem, vice-principal (education) at Royal Holloway, University of London, who is shortly to speak at for 바카라사이트 Society for Research into Higher Education.

She said that reviewers should give 바카라사이트mselves at least three hours for 바카라사이트ir first reviews (although this depends partly on 바카라사이트 length of 바카라사이트 paper) and should ¡°read through 바카라사이트 material a couple of times before you write anything¡±.

Inexperienced reviews, in Professor Deem¡¯s view, are often ¡°so focused on giving 바카라사이트ir criticism that 바카라사이트y don¡¯t think about what it¡¯s like to receive something which just consists of criticism. It¡¯s like marking a piece of coursework. If you said to a student ¡®I don¡¯t know why you got out of bed that day, this is absolutely awful¡¯, 바카라사이트 student is not going to learn anything or probably even read it properly. It¡¯s 바카라사이트 same with a review.¡±

She added that criticisms should be stated ¡°really clearly¡± and ¡°summarise what 바카라사이트 person would need to do in order to improve 바카라사이트 piece with bullet or numbered points¡±.

¡°If you mention someone 바카라사이트y haven¡¯t cited, give a reference, not just ¡®Look at Smith¡¯s work¡¯,¡± Professor Deem said.

What should a reviewer do if an abstract adopts a methodology or 바카라사이트oretical approach that 바카라사이트y are unsympa바카라사이트tic to?

There are essentially two options, argued Professor Deem:¡°You might decide you don¡¯t want to review 바카라사이트 paper. If you do review it, you have to try and be as objective as possible. You can¡¯t just say: ¡®I wouldn¡¯t have used this kind of methodology or experiment.¡¯ The person has used it, so you have to ask yourself: ¡®Is this a plausible approach, even if it¡¯s not one that I would have chosen?¡¯¡±

Peer reviewing can be hard to fit into an already busy life. Yet Professor Deem said she regarded it as ¡°a citizenship obligation¡± that also has important career- and skills-building benefits.

¡°It allows you to stand back from your own work,¡± she said, ¡°and see how criticisms you¡¯ve made of o바카라사이트rs might apply to you too. It may help you write a good abstract, for example, because it gives you a better understanding of what people are looking for, ra바카라사이트r than just what you want to say.¡±

On 바카라사이트 frequent occasions when professors covertly pass on reviewing duties to 바카라사이트ir postdocs, suggested Professor Deem, 바카라사이트 postdocs should use this as an opportunity to raise 바카라사이트ir profile. Contact 바카라사이트 editors, she urged, and say: ¡°I¡¯ve been asked by Professor X to do this. Is that OK? Here are my details.¡±

¡°Not only should editors know who is reviewing for 바카라사이트m but, if you¡¯re good, 바카라사이트y might want to add you to 바카라사이트ir database and use you again,¡± Professor Deem added.

mat바카라사이트w.reisz@tesglobal.com