Editorial
2014; Wiley; Volume: 33; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/emip.12029
ISSN1745-3992
Autores Tópico(s)Health Sciences Research and Education
ResumoSome of my colleagues are very cynical about the traditional process of peer review in academic journals. One good reason for such cynicism can be illustrated by the results of a study conducted by Kravitz et al. (2010). Kravtiz et al. examined all reviewer recommendations and editor decisions at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) between 2004 and 2008. They found that “Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers’ recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers’ recommendations.” A year into my tenure as editor of EM:IP this conclusion does not surprise me. To begin with, peer reviewers are not randomly sampled but purposely chosen based on the perception that they are qualified to evaluate the subject of the manuscript. But what happens when a manuscript takes a critical perspective on an existing practice or paradigm? It would be natural to have at least one (or more) peer reviewer who represents the perspective being criticized, and such reviewers are likely to be defensive. At this point instead of reviewing the manuscript on its own merits, the peer reviewers may well launch into a rebuttal. Some reviewers may not always recognize that their role is not so much to critique the conclusion reached in a manuscript, but to critique the evidence and argument used to reach a given conclusion. On the other hand, some reviewers are simply not critical enough, and don't seem to invest enough time or effort in their reviews. This can lead to misunderstandings that are frustrating to the submitting author(s). My policy as editor has been, and will continue to be, to find high-quality reviewers and leverage their expertise to drive the review process. However, as editor I am not just a “vote counter” but another reviewer. I read every manuscript that gets submitted to EM:IP, and if the reviewers disagree, or I think that they have missed the mark, I will take a mediating role, conferring with my associate editors when the decision is a tough call. So prospective authors submitting to EM:IP can be assured that their manuscript will receive a careful review and a decision letter that is constructively critical. A prospective author will never get a decision letter from me that simply says “Please see the comments from the reviewers and address all of them in your revision.” Who needs an editor for that? Even when a manuscript gets rejected I try to provide feedback that will give authors new ideas that can help them push their research in a positive direction. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and we on the editorial staff at EM:IP certainly believe that figures and diagrams are powerful tools in making educational measurement issues of practical importance accessible to both educators and the public. Accordingly, EM:IP editorial staff are committed to including interesting and innovative approaches to data visualization on the cover of each issue, but we need your help! We are calling for original graphical submissions (figures or diagrams) that creatively illustrate a fundamental statistical/psychometric concept or data/results. The winning submission will be printed on the cover of the Summer 2014 EM:IP issue. Other strong submissions may be published online or saved for a future issue. Submissions were due by5 PM Pacific Saturday, March 15, 2014. We will announce the winner at the 2014 NCME conference during the NCME Breakfast meeting. Designed to capture the history of NCME since its founding in 1938, the NCME Timeline presents a chronological history of NCME. Documented on the Timeline are the organization's initial incorporation as the National Association of Teachers of Educational Measurement founded by 45 college teachers of measurement and 12 public schools or state departments of education, through its name change in 1940 to National Council on Measurement Used in Education, to its current identification as the National Council on Measurement in Education in 1960. Along the timeline, names of the organization presidents are shown along with some of their photos. Also, both educational policy and NCME milestones are juxtaposed. Important NCME Board decisions are highlighted along with the creation of annual awards, showing photos of the honorees for named awards. Important NCME publications are called out along the timeline as well. The original 18-foot timeline was displayed during the 2013 NCME annual meeting as part of NCME's 75th Anniversary Celebration. The timeline was created by NCME's Timeline Committee that included Barbara Plake (chair), Linda Cook, Deanna Morgan, Katie McClarty, Rosemary Rechestar, and Gretchen Anderson. To see the graphic in full detail, please visit http://ncme.org/default/assets/File/Committee%20Docs/General/ncmeTimeline042513.pdf
Referência(s)