| cfp_for__navigating_peer_reviewing_for_academic_journal__.pdf |
Call for Chapters
Developing Feedback Literacy for Academic Journal Peer Review
Edited by
Dr. Sin Wang Chong, Queen’s University Belfast, UK
About the book
Peer-review is a central and integral process of academic publishing. It serves an important function of ensuring the quality of journal publications and advancing the development of research fields (Rowland, 2002). Useful and constructive feedback from peer reviewers helps authors improve their manuscripts. On the contrary, ill-conceived and cynical feedback can be detrimental to both scholarship and wellbeing of academics (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019). Peer-review, because of its often double-blind nature, is done 'behind-the-scenes', making the process more mysterious. Although there are existing guidelines on most journals' and publishers' websites for peer reviewers and authors, there is a lack of professional development opportunities, especially in relation to how authors and peer reviewers can engage in fruitful and professional communications in the review process through feedback. This makes journal peer review a daunting experience, especially to doctoral students and early career researchers (ECRs) (McDowell et al., 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to develop academics’ feedback literacy, which refers to their capacity, disposition, and skills to provide and engage with constructive, professional, and actionable feedback (Chong, 2021).
This edited book, which will be submitted to Routledge’s "Insider Guides to Success in Academia" series (editors have expressed interest and extended an invitation to submit a proposal), targets doctoral students and ECRs and will include contributions from doctoral students, ECRs, journal reviewers, and journal editors, which share their own narratives and experiences in different capacities in crafting and/or handling feedback in the journal peer-review process. This book intends to be interdisciplinary and welcomes submissions from researchers in all academic fields. The primary focus of this book is on the feedback process of journal peer review. So regardless of the focus of the contributions, there needs to be an explicit and substantial emphasis on or implications for feedback practices. Specifically, we are interested in:
● How to review different types of paper (e.g., primary study, commentary, conceptual piece, theoretical piece)?
● What does it mean to give professional and constructive feedback?
● How to handle different editorial decisions (esp. rejections)?
● How to respond to reviewers’ feedback?
● What is the role of journal editors in the peer review process?
● What is the role played by “publication brokers” (people who can help you to decipher what reviewers mean) in the peer review process?
● What is the relationship between peer review feedback and academics’ emotional wellbeing?
● What is the relationship between peer review feedback and researcher development?
● What professional development opportunities can be provided to those who are new to the peer review process?
● How can doctoral education prepare researchers for the peer review process?
We are also interested in other areas of journal peer review (e.g., alternative peer review models) as long as they are related to the feedback and communication process of peer review.
Timeline
Expression of interest (a tentative title and 1-2 sentence abstract) [CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT]
1 October 2021 (Fri)
Submission of full abstract (500 words, including references) [CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT]
1 November 2021 (Mon)
Notification of outcome
1 December 2021 (Wed)
Submission of full manuscript (5,000 words including references)
2 May 2022 (Mon)
Peer review of full manuscripts
May - July 2022
Notification of final editorial decision
July 2022
Submission of full manuscript to publisher
August 2022
About the Editors
Sin-Wang Chong (PhD, SFHEA) is an assistant professor in TESOL at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast. His research interests include assessment feedback, educational and language assessment, and educational technology. He is Associate Editor of the journals Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (T&F) and Higher Education Research & Development (T&F). He is also a Section Editor of Elsevier’s
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (3rd ed., forthcoming). Sin-Wang is one of the convenors of British Educational Research Association’s ECR Network.
Dr. Hui Ma is currently working as a postdoctoral research assistant at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast. His research interests include language assessment and language education.
For enquiries, please contact Dr. Sin-Wang Chong at s.chong@qub.ac.uk.
References
Chong, S.W. (2021), Improving peer-review by developing reviewers' feedback literacy. Learned Publishing, 34, 461-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1378
McDowell, G. S., Knutsen, J. D., Graham, J. M., Oelker, S. K., & Lijek, R. S. (2019). Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife, 8, e48425. https://doi.org/10.1101/617373
Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15, 247– 258. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206
Silbiger, N. J., & Stubler, A. D. (2019). Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ, 7, e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247
Developing Feedback Literacy for Academic Journal Peer Review
Edited by
Dr. Sin Wang Chong, Queen’s University Belfast, UK
About the book
Peer-review is a central and integral process of academic publishing. It serves an important function of ensuring the quality of journal publications and advancing the development of research fields (Rowland, 2002). Useful and constructive feedback from peer reviewers helps authors improve their manuscripts. On the contrary, ill-conceived and cynical feedback can be detrimental to both scholarship and wellbeing of academics (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019). Peer-review, because of its often double-blind nature, is done 'behind-the-scenes', making the process more mysterious. Although there are existing guidelines on most journals' and publishers' websites for peer reviewers and authors, there is a lack of professional development opportunities, especially in relation to how authors and peer reviewers can engage in fruitful and professional communications in the review process through feedback. This makes journal peer review a daunting experience, especially to doctoral students and early career researchers (ECRs) (McDowell et al., 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to develop academics’ feedback literacy, which refers to their capacity, disposition, and skills to provide and engage with constructive, professional, and actionable feedback (Chong, 2021).
This edited book, which will be submitted to Routledge’s "Insider Guides to Success in Academia" series (editors have expressed interest and extended an invitation to submit a proposal), targets doctoral students and ECRs and will include contributions from doctoral students, ECRs, journal reviewers, and journal editors, which share their own narratives and experiences in different capacities in crafting and/or handling feedback in the journal peer-review process. This book intends to be interdisciplinary and welcomes submissions from researchers in all academic fields. The primary focus of this book is on the feedback process of journal peer review. So regardless of the focus of the contributions, there needs to be an explicit and substantial emphasis on or implications for feedback practices. Specifically, we are interested in:
● How to review different types of paper (e.g., primary study, commentary, conceptual piece, theoretical piece)?
● What does it mean to give professional and constructive feedback?
● How to handle different editorial decisions (esp. rejections)?
● How to respond to reviewers’ feedback?
● What is the role of journal editors in the peer review process?
● What is the role played by “publication brokers” (people who can help you to decipher what reviewers mean) in the peer review process?
● What is the relationship between peer review feedback and academics’ emotional wellbeing?
● What is the relationship between peer review feedback and researcher development?
● What professional development opportunities can be provided to those who are new to the peer review process?
● How can doctoral education prepare researchers for the peer review process?
We are also interested in other areas of journal peer review (e.g., alternative peer review models) as long as they are related to the feedback and communication process of peer review.
Timeline
Expression of interest (a tentative title and 1-2 sentence abstract) [CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT]
1 October 2021 (Fri)
Submission of full abstract (500 words, including references) [CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT]
1 November 2021 (Mon)
Notification of outcome
1 December 2021 (Wed)
Submission of full manuscript (5,000 words including references)
2 May 2022 (Mon)
Peer review of full manuscripts
May - July 2022
Notification of final editorial decision
July 2022
Submission of full manuscript to publisher
August 2022
About the Editors
Sin-Wang Chong (PhD, SFHEA) is an assistant professor in TESOL at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast. His research interests include assessment feedback, educational and language assessment, and educational technology. He is Associate Editor of the journals Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (T&F) and Higher Education Research & Development (T&F). He is also a Section Editor of Elsevier’s
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (3rd ed., forthcoming). Sin-Wang is one of the convenors of British Educational Research Association’s ECR Network.
Dr. Hui Ma is currently working as a postdoctoral research assistant at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast. His research interests include language assessment and language education.
For enquiries, please contact Dr. Sin-Wang Chong at s.chong@qub.ac.uk.
References
Chong, S.W. (2021), Improving peer-review by developing reviewers' feedback literacy. Learned Publishing, 34, 461-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1378
McDowell, G. S., Knutsen, J. D., Graham, J. M., Oelker, S. K., & Lijek, R. S. (2019). Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife, 8, e48425. https://doi.org/10.1101/617373
Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15, 247– 258. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206
Silbiger, N. J., & Stubler, A. D. (2019). Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ, 7, e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247