Browsing by Subject "Peer review"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 13
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    10x10=100: Best Practices and Lessons Learned from a Decade of Teaching Online Courses
    (2015-11-21) Hook, Sara Anne
    Drawn from the literature and the Quality Matters rubric as well as the presenter’s own experiences of 10 years of teaching online and in developing 10 courses on a wide variety of subjects, this presentation will offer a generous number of practical approaches and strategies that can be taken to enhance instructor-to-student and student-to-student interaction, encourage active learning and accountability, incorporate peer review and self-reflection, assess student learning outcomes and utilize technology most effectively.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Big and Small: Active Learning in Online and Face-to-Face Courses
    (2017-04-07) Hook, Sara Anne; Zhu, Liugen
    Drawn from the literature and the experiences of two faculty members, this presentation will highlight a variety of opportunities to promote active learning in online and face-to-face courses. Although some options may require substantial adjustment in pedagogical and logistical approaches, they will demonstrate how even small changes in a course can result in big improvements in student engagement and success.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    By and For Us: The Development of a Peer Review of Teaching Program by and for Pre-Tenure Librarians
    (Collaborative Librarianship, 2012) Alabi, Jaena; Huisman, Rhonda; Lacy, Meagan; Miller, Willie; Snajdr, Eric; Trinoskey, Jessica; Weare, William H., Jr.
    Seven pre-tenure librarians at the University Library at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), concerned about the effectiveness of their library instruction, created a peer review of teaching (PROT) group. This article provides an overview of the LIS literature on PROT and identifies the commonalities and variations found in PROT programs. The authors then describe the development, implementation, and benefits of the PROT program at IUPUI. The program outcomes are discussed, including benefits for the observed, the observer, and for the PROT group as a whole. The authors also found that the implementation of a PROT program can enhance the sense of community among colleagues.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Criticism is not a four-letter word: Best practices for constructive feedback in the peer review of teaching.
    (2014) Alabi, Jaena; Weare, William H., Jr.
    In recent years, peer review of teaching (PROT) has become an increasingly important tool for evaluating library instruction. Most PROT programs consist of three components: a pre-observation meeting, the observation of teaching, and a post-observation session. The post-observation feedback session can be especially challenging—for both the observer and the observed. Drawing upon literature addressing the peer review of teaching, the authors recommend a set of best practices for providing constructive criticism to fellow instruction librarians.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?
    (Public Library of Science, 2010-04-08) Kravitz, Richard L.; Franks, Peter; Feldman, Mitchell D.; Gerrity, Martha; Byrne, Cindy; Tierney, William M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM). Methodology/Principal Findings We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p<.01). In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscript type, the reviewer-level ICC was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19–0.29) and the manuscript-level ICC was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12–0.22). The editors' overall rejection rate was 48%: 88% when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (7% of manuscripts) and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should not be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01). Conclusions/Significance Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An exploration of reflective writing and self-assessments to explain professionalism lapses among medical students
    (2014) Hoffman, Leslie Ann; Frankel, Richard M.; Brokaw, James J.; Pike, Gary R. (Gary Robert), 1952-; Shew, Ronald L.; Vu, T. Robert
    Background: Recent literature on medical professionalism claims that self-awareness and the ability to reflect upon one’s experiences is a critical component of professionalism; however there is a paucity of empirical evidence to support this claim. This study employed a mixed methods approach to explore the utility of reflective writing and self- and peer assessments in explaining professionalism lapses among medical students. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted using students from Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) who had been disciplined for unprofessional behavior between 2006-2013 (case group; n=70). A randomly selected control group (n=230) was used for comparison. Reflective ability was assessed using a validated rubric to score students’ professionalism journals. Mean reflection scores and assessment scores were compared using t-tests. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the impact of reflection scores and self- and peer assessment scores on the likelihood of having been disciplined for unprofessional behavior. Subsequent qualitative analysis further explored when and how students learned professionalism during their clinical experiences. Results: The study found that students in the case group exhibited lower reflective ability than control students. Furthermore, reflective ability was a significant factor in explaining the odds that a student had been cited for professionalism lapses. There were no differences in self-assessment scores between the two groups, but students in the case group had significantly lower peer assessment scores than control students. Peer assessment scores also had the greatest influence on the odds that a student had been cited for professionalism deficiencies during medical school. Qualitative analysis revealed that students learn professionalism from role models who demonstrated altruism and respect (or lack thereof). Conclusions: These findings suggest that students should be provided with guidance and feedback on their reflective writing to promote higher levels of reflection, which may reduce the number of students who are cited for professionalism lapses. These findings also indicate that peer assessments can be used to provide students with insightful feedback regarding their professional development. Finally, role models have a strong influence on students’ professional development, and therefore must be cognizant of the implicit messages their behaviors convey.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Peer Review for Digital Humanities Projects: A Modest Proposal
    (2016-04-20) Odell, Jere D.; Pollock, Caitlin M.J.
    Promotion and tenure (P&T) values do not always align with to the practice of digital humanities in academic settings. In short, it’s just easier to measure the value of a publication in a well-known journal or a book-length monograph from a trusted university press. Articles are cited and monographs are reviewed, but digital humanities projects are a less-known product--they come in so many flavors and are disseminated by disparate channels. As a result, many digital humanists may be pressured (after investing many hours of labor in a project) to seek validation for their digital projects by writing one or more articles describing the work for traditional peer reviewed outlets. This discourages further work on the digital project, creating a culture in which the project need only be good enough to describe in an article. It also punishes the digital humanist by doubling up on their efforts to meet the bar of P&T. Without new incentive structures that digital humanists can leverage in the P&T process, the adoption of digital humanities practices will lag and the field’s experimental and boundary-testing nature will be diminished. This is a proposal for developing an incentive structure for digital humanities scholarly production.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Scholarship Project: Creating Sustainable Growth for Open Access Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences
    (Library Publishing Forum, 2015-03-29) Odell, Jere D.; Kelly, Jason M.
    Some successful approaches to open access publishing have grown organically from the cultures that sustain them. For example, arXiv has leveraged the need for the quick transfer of research findings by providing a preprint service. Alternatively, PLOS One has met a need for timely, methods-based review (particularly in the grant-supported health and life sciences) and sustains publishing by levying article processing fees. A successful approach to open access publishing in the humanities will also need to grow from the unique needs of its authors while complimenting existing value structures. Thus, the Open Scholarship Project (OSP) seeks to build a no-fee, subscription-free, transparent and unbound approach to open access publishing. The development of the OSP aims to incorporate four principles: 1) no-fee ("Diamond") open access, 2) versioning, 3) open peer review, and 4) badging. Here we share some prototypes of the system that will support these principles, including: asynchronous, threaded, open peer review at the paragraph level; versioning inspired by GitHub; and a use of the Mozilla Open Badges Framework to permit interdisciplinary authors to solicit imprimaturs from relevant societies and organizations. We also describe initial steps to leverage a library publishing partnership to establish a sustainable, no-fee approach to open access publishing. By joining with others, we believe that ventures like the OSP can create an environment for scholarly communications that respects the culture of the humanities while taking advantage of a fully unbound digital model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool (POET): A Formative Peer Review Supporting Scholarly Teaching
    (2016-07-01) Crabtree, Jeffrey L.; Scott, Patricia J.; Kuo, Fengyi; Department of Occupational Therapy, IU School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences