The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers
Saved in:
| Title: | The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | T. Grady Roberts (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Agricultural Education. 2025 66(3). |
| Availability: | American Association for Agricultural Education. P.O. Box 7607, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Raleigh, NC 27695. Web site: https://jae-online.org/index.php/jae/index |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Peer Evaluation, Journal Articles, Agricultural Education, Educational Research, Evaluators, Evaluation Methods, Research Problems, Attitudes, Conference Papers |
| DOI: | 10.5032/jae.v66i3.3201 |
| ISSN: | 1042-0541 2162-5212 |
| Abstract: | The peer review process is important for substantiating the quality of research. In this study, we examine the experiences of peer reviewers in agricultural education. The research presented in this article is part of a larger study that also examined the perspectives of researchers about peer review. We used a survey to collect data from a random sample of researchers who had published in seven different journals related to agricultural education. Data presented in this study are from a subset of the total respondents who self-identified as peer reviewers (n = 64). On average, participants had published 46 articles in their careers. They reviewed six journal articles and nine conference submissions in the last 12 months. They reviewed for four or more journals, with the Journal of Agricultural Education and journals outside our narrow discipline being the most common. Participants were more internally motivated to review. There was quite a bit of agreement amongst the peer reviewers in our study about the process they use to review an article. In order, the most important parts were (a) methodology, (b) purpose, objectives, research questions, (c) introduction/problem statement, (d) findings/presentation of results, (e) contribution to the field, and (f) theoretical/conceptual framework. Participants also described four fundamental errors that could not be addressed through revisions and thus would automatically warrant rejection. These include (a) methodological issues, (b) ethical concerns, (c) poor writing quality, and (d) lack of novelty or relevance issues. We offer several tangible suggestions for reforming our practices. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1480398 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The peer review process is important for substantiating the quality of research. In this study, we examine the experiences of peer reviewers in agricultural education. The research presented in this article is part of a larger study that also examined the perspectives of researchers about peer review. We used a survey to collect data from a random sample of researchers who had published in seven different journals related to agricultural education. Data presented in this study are from a subset of the total respondents who self-identified as peer reviewers (n = 64). On average, participants had published 46 articles in their careers. They reviewed six journal articles and nine conference submissions in the last 12 months. They reviewed for four or more journals, with the Journal of Agricultural Education and journals outside our narrow discipline being the most common. Participants were more internally motivated to review. There was quite a bit of agreement amongst the peer reviewers in our study about the process they use to review an article. In order, the most important parts were (a) methodology, (b) purpose, objectives, research questions, (c) introduction/problem statement, (d) findings/presentation of results, (e) contribution to the field, and (f) theoretical/conceptual framework. Participants also described four fundamental errors that could not be addressed through revisions and thus would automatically warrant rejection. These include (a) methodological issues, (b) ethical concerns, (c) poor writing quality, and (d) lack of novelty or relevance issues. We offer several tangible suggestions for reforming our practices. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1042-0541 2162-5212 |
| DOI: | 10.5032/jae.v66i3.3201 |
