FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2477261383> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2477261383 endingPage "979" @default.
• W2477261383 startingPage "975" @default.
• W2477261383 abstract "Conventional contributions to the education of doctoral students by premier, refereed research journals—such as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching—have been, and continue to be, both substantial and critical. Research manuscripts published in such journals often populate the reading lists for doctoral level courses, seminars, colloquia, and independent studies. These manuscripts introduce doctoral students to both classic and paradigm-setting works in a disciplinary research field, as well as to research at the cutting-edge of scholarship in that field, including studies that, in retrospect, become viewed as paradigm-shattering scholarship. Premier research journals also enculturate students into state-of-the-art methodologies and current patterns of discourse and genres of writing in a field. These journals often are the first choice for publishing high-quality dissertations by students near the conclusion of their doctoral programs or shortly thereafter. Like its peers, we believe JRST has, and continues to, contribute in these major respects to doctoral education in the field of science education and beyond. Nonetheless, we believe that JRST and its peers have an enormous, and as of yet unrealized, potential to make additional and unique contributions to doctoral education. In particular, in partnership with academic faculty, our journals can provide doctoral students with an authentic experience that will enable them to be connoisseurs of scholarship, and to better negotiate the process of peer-refereed publication. This process often remains a black-box for doctoral students, who typically get to engage in the process only after they launch efforts to publish their doctoral dissertation. Our team's proposal to NARST for the JRST editorship explicitly identified this need and promised “building a deliberate educational component into the editorial operations of the journal, which would take the form of two initiatives.” One of these initiatives will specifically target the education of doctoral students in science education. During the past several months, we have refined the process, and have worked with Wiley, our publisher, to develop the requisite infrastructure in the ScholarOne Manuscripts™ system to formally launch a pilot of the “JRST Doctoral Student Mentored Reviewer Initiative” (the initiative). We start by distinguishing our new initiative from other graduate student guest reviewer programs sponsored by research journals. JRST has had a similar, longstanding program: Indeed, one of the co-editors had served as a guest reviewer for JRST during his doctoral program many years ago. Most often, journals elicit student reviewers, or permit students to initiate contact with journals, asking to serve as guest reviewers. Students are assigned manuscripts and write reviews, which to the best of our knowledge, rarely, if ever, count toward the final editorial decision on the manuscript in question. (As noted below, this latter feature will be upheld in our initiative.) Students might or might not eventually receive a copy of the ‘expert’ reviews and/or editorial decision letter sent to authors. These programs most often do not go beyond this point. From personal experience, we attest to the substantial value of these programs in terms of engaging doctoral students with an important facet of the peer review process, that is, the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication, and the provision of constructive feedback that is helpful to submitting authors. Moreover, these programs are very useful in terms of building the capacity of the next generation of field reviewers, and eventually editorial board members, for our journals. However, we wanted to extend and deepen the experience of doctoral students with other crucial facets of peer review, as well as provide faculty partners with opportunities to engage students with meaningful discussions about research, and to apply what they learned and developed during doctoral level research and cognate coursework. We hope that, at this point, the authenticity and potential contributions of this experience to the education of doctoral students in science education are apparent. Short of writing the original manuscript or revising it for resubmission, participant students would have experienced, under the professional guidance and supervision of their faculty mentor, the various facets of the peer review process. Students would have engaged not only with the review of a manuscript, but also with thinking about possible ways to revise it to address the critical and constructive feedback that is a hallmark of the peer review process. Doctoral students would also have experienced, firsthand, the social and negotiated nature of the double-blind peer review process and, hopefully, thereby come to realize its value. In particular, we hope that students would internalize the fact that a finalized published manuscript comes into being as the result of a process that engages the collective minds of a number of individuals in their research community who mindfully participate in critical discourse through a well-established process, featuring a set of practical conventions and ethical standards. The depth, and/or breadth of approach and experiences, for which the lead faculty member would assume responsibility, would be up to him/her. The experience could take the form of informal meetings, an independent course of study, a professional seminar, or even a formal 1-credit hour course. In this context, it is important to recognize that many science education faculty members have designed and implemented similar experiences for their students. These valuable experiences most often pertain to the manuscripts that the faculty members had authored themselves. The difference with the present initiative is that the manuscripts in question are concurrently being considered for publication by JRST and, at the time of their engagement, like the manuscript author(s) and journal editors, the participant faculty members and students will be working with a ‘live’ submission, so to speak, whereby the final editorial decision is yet to be determined. This feature adds levels of authenticity, immediacy, and relevancy that are hard to replicate with manuscripts that have already seen their way to publication, and where students could easily Google “the right answer” for the question before them as to whether a manuscript merits publication or not. Faculty and students should expect the whole process to take about 5 to 7 months depending on how long they engage with the writing of their final report. They should anticipate receiving the editorial decision letter for the manuscript they are assigned in about four months from the time they express interest in participating. We are excited about launching and piloting this initiative, and hope that faculty and doctoral students in our global science education community will take advantage of this experience and will fashion it in ways that best serve their education and professional development. We do have limited capacity and will be only able to accept a limited number of applicant groups per calendar year. Our editorial team surely is committed to keeping JRST at the cutting-edge of scholarship and as the premier outlet for highly rigorous and impactful research in science education. Through our “Doctoral Student Mentored Reviewer Initiative,” we also hope to place JRST and NARST at the forefront of peer refereed journals and professional organizations that play an expanded and integral role in the doctoral preparation of the next generation of researchers and scholars. The initiative web page is available in the Special Features section of the JRST Wiley website, including a copy of this editorial and important links; initiative news and updates will be posted there as needed." @default.
• W2477261383 created "2016-08-23" @default.
• W2477261383 creator A5004809276 @default.
• W2477261383 creator A5030192186 @default.
• W2477261383 date "2016-07-31" @default.
• W2477261383 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2477261383 title "Pioneering theJRSTdoctoral student mentored reviewer initiative: Bolstering the contributions of a top-tier research journal to graduate education" @default.
• W2477261383 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21343" @default.
• W2477261383 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2477261383 type Work @default.
• W2477261383 sameAs 2477261383 @default.
• W2477261383 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2477261383 countsByYear W24772613832020 @default.
• W2477261383 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2477261383 hasAuthorship W2477261383A5004809276 @default.
• W2477261383 hasAuthorship W2477261383A5030192186 @default.
• W2477261383 hasBestOaLocation W24772613831 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C2985790989 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C3020528894 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C36727532 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C44877443 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C144024400 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C145420912 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C15744967 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C19417346 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C2985790989 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C3020528894 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C36727532 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C44877443 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C509550671 @default.
• W2477261383 hasConceptScore W2477261383C71924100 @default.
• W2477261383 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2477261383 hasLocation W24772613831 @default.
• W2477261383 hasOpenAccess W2477261383 @default.
• W2477261383 hasPrimaryLocation W24772613831 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2348588505 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2355130176 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2356597285 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2356831756 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2367051224 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2369503939 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2380375561 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W2389360268 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W3029183451 @default.
• W2477261383 hasRelatedWork W4285222632 @default.
• W2477261383 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W2477261383 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2477261383 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2477261383 magId "2477261383" @default.
• W2477261383 workType "article" @default.