View in EDS

The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers
Language: English
Authors: T. Grady Roberts (ORCID 0000-0001-7618-7850), Amy Harder (ORCID 0000-0002-7042-2028), James R. Lindner (ORCID 0000-0002-1448-3846)
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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1480398
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22T%2E+Grady+Roberts%22">T. Grady Roberts</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7618-7850">0000-0001-7618-7850</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amy+Harder%22">Amy Harder</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7042-2028">0000-0002-7042-2028</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22James+R%2E+Lindner%22">James R. Lindner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1448-3846">0000-0002-1448-3846</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Agricultural+Education%22"><i>Journal of Agricultural Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 66(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: 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
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Evaluation%22">Peer Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agricultural+Education%22">Agricultural Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluators%22">Evaluators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Problems%22">Research Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conference+Papers%22">Conference Papers</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.5032/jae.v66i3.3201
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-0541<br />2162-5212
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1480398
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1480398
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.5032/jae.v66i3.3201
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Agricultural Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conference Papers
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Peer Review Process: Perspectives of Reviewers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: T. Grady Roberts
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amy Harder
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: James R. Lindner
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-0541
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-5212
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 66
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Agricultural Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1