Godoy LA "Differences between experts and novices in the review of engineering journal papers " J. of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 132(1): 24-28 Jan. 2006

[Eugene Garfield]

Luis A. Godoy : E-mail Addresses: lgodoy at uprm.edu

Title: Differences between experts and novices in the review of engineering
journal papers

Author(s): Godoy LA

Source: JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND
PRACTICE 132 (1): 24-28 JAN 2006

Document Type: Article    Language: English
Cited References: 18      Times Cited: 0

Abstract:
This paper reports on a controlled experiment carried out to investigate
the differences between novices and experts during the review of papers for
engineering journals. A total of 17 young faculty members with PhD degrees
were given instruction on the peer review process, and then had to review a
short paper, for which the actual reviews were available. The quality of
the reviews was assessed using criteria developed by editors of medical
journals. The evidence obtained from this study helps to identify the
critical areas in which reviewers fail to perform a good review, and then
to develop strategies to overcome such limitations.

Addresses: Godoy LA (reprint author), Univ Puerto Rico, Dept Civil Engn &
Surveying, Mayaguez, PR 00681 USA
Univ Puerto Rico, Dept Civil Engn & Surveying, Mayaguez, PR 00681 USA

E-mail Addresses: lgodoy at uprm.edu

Publisher: ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS, 1801 ALEXANDER BELL DR, RESTON,
VA 20191-4400 USA
Subject Category: ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
IDS Number: 998OO
ISSN: 1052-3928

CITED REFERENCES:
NATURE 413 : 93 2001
 BAXT WG
ACAD EMERG MED 3 : 504 1996
 BLACK N
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 : 231 1998
 BRANSFORD JD
PEOPLE LEARN BRAIN M : 1999
 CALLAHAM ML
Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of
manuscripts
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 280 : 229 1998
 CALLAHAN ML
Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews - Two
tandomized trials
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 287 : 2781 2002
 GODOY LA
Initiative to strengthen publications by young faculty
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE 127 :
116 2001
 HARNAD S
PEER COMMENTARY PEER : 1982
 HO TBL
J ROY SOC MED 95 : 571 2002
 JUDSON HF
STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE SCIENCES AND THE END OF PEER-REVIEW
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 272 : 92 1994
 KASSIRER JP
PEER-REVIEW - CRUDE AND UNDERSTUDIED, BUT INDISPENSABLE
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 272 : 96 1994
 MCCUEN RH
ELEMENTS ACAD RES : 1996
 MILLER LT
P AM SOC ENG ED SE S : 2004
 NARAYANAN RM
Academic leadership strategies for engineering faculty
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 19 : 241 2003
 PETERS DP
PEER-REVIEW PRACTICES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS - THE FATE OF ACCEPTED,
PUBLISHED ARTICLES, SUBMITTED AGAIN
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 5 : 187 1982
 PETERSON GA
RES ETHICS MANUSCRIP : 1992
 VANROOYEN S
Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer
reviews of manuscripts
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY 52 : 625 1999
 WOODWARD J
Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science
AMERICAN SCIENTIST 84 : 479 1996