TY - GEN
T1 - Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research
AU - Petre, Marian
AU - Sanders, Kate
AU - Mccartney, Robert
AU - Ahmadzadeh, Marzieh
AU - Connolly, Cornelia
AU - Hamouda, Sally
AU - Harrington, Brian
AU - Lumbroso, Jérémie
AU - Maguire, Joseph
AU - Malmi, Lauri
AU - Mcgill, Monica M.
AU - Vahrenhold, Jan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 ACM.
PY - 2020/6/17
Y1 - 2020/6/17
N2 - Peer review is a mainstay of academic publication - indeed, it is the peer-review process that provides much of the publications' credibility. As the number of computing education conferences and the number of submissions increase, the need for reviewers grows. This report does not attempt to set standards for reviewing; rather, as a first step toward meeting the need for well qualified reviewers, it presents an overview of the ways peer review is used in various venues, both inside computing education and, for comparison, in closely-related areas outside our field. It considers four key components of peer review in some depth: criteria, the review process, roles and responsibilities, and ethics and etiquette. To do so, it draws on relevant literature, guidance and forms associated with peer review, interviews with journal editors and conference chairs, and a limited survey of the computing education research community. In addition to providing an overview of practice, this report identifies a number of themes running through the discourse that have relevance for decision making about how best to conduct peer review for a given venue.
AB - Peer review is a mainstay of academic publication - indeed, it is the peer-review process that provides much of the publications' credibility. As the number of computing education conferences and the number of submissions increase, the need for reviewers grows. This report does not attempt to set standards for reviewing; rather, as a first step toward meeting the need for well qualified reviewers, it presents an overview of the ways peer review is used in various venues, both inside computing education and, for comparison, in closely-related areas outside our field. It considers four key components of peer review in some depth: criteria, the review process, roles and responsibilities, and ethics and etiquette. To do so, it draws on relevant literature, guidance and forms associated with peer review, interviews with journal editors and conference chairs, and a limited survey of the computing education research community. In addition to providing an overview of practice, this report identifies a number of themes running through the discourse that have relevance for decision making about how best to conduct peer review for a given venue.
KW - computing education
KW - peer review
KW - peer review criteria
KW - peer review ethics
KW - peer review process
KW - peer review roles
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098699519&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85098699519&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/3437800.3439207
DO - 10.1145/3437800.3439207
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85098699519
T3 - Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE
SP - 173
EP - 209
BT - ITiCSE-WGR 2020 - Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
PB - Association for Computing Machinery
T2 - 2020 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE-WGR 2020
Y2 - 17 June 2020 through 18 June 2020
ER -