Differences between Experts and Novices in the Review of Engineering Journal Papers

dc.contributor.author	Luis A. Godoy
dc.date.accessioned	2017-05-08T21:20:40Z
dc.date.available	2017-05-08T21:20:40Z
dc.date.copyright	January 2006
dc.date.issued	2006
dc.identifier.other	%28asce%291052-3928%282006%29132%3A1%2824%29.pdf
dc.identifier.uri	http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47782
dc.description.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.
dc.publisher	American Society of Civil Engineers
dc.title	Differences between Experts and Novices in the Review of Engineering Journal Papers
dc.type	Journal Paper
dc.journal.volume	132
dc.journal.issue	1
dc.journal.title	Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
dc.identifier.doi	10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:1(24)
dc.tree	Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2006:;Volume ( 132 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttype	Fulltext