Advertisement

Quality Research Through Peer Assessment

  • Mmabaledi SeeletsoEmail author
  • Moeketsi Letseka
Chapter
  • 3 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

The chapter explores the notions of quality and/or quality assurance in scholarship through peer assessment or peer review. It takes peer assessment or peer review as critical components of quality control in scholarly publishing. While there is tacit knowledge that philosophically ‘quality’ is a notoriously elusive and value-laden term, there is a consensus that quality presupposes other related notions such as exceptionality, perfection or consistency, ‘fitness-for-purpose’ or ‘value-for-money’. In scholarship peer assessment or peer review is regarded as a dependable anchor for assuring, supporting and maintaining the quality and integrity of the research that gets published. Thus the chapter’s stance is that the peer review or peer-assessment process is critical scholastic pillar in that it acts as a quality control mechanism that ensures that the validity, reliability, veracity and integrity of published research are maintained and assured.

Keywords

Peer assessment Peer review Quality Quality assurance Review guidelines 

References

  1. Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF). (2017). Best practice for peer review of scholarly books. Pretoria: Department of Science and Technology (DST).Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T. W. (2013). Peer review guidance; how to write a good review? The Journal of the American Osteophathic Association., 113(12), 918–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aluko, R., Letseka, M., & Pitsoe, V. (Eds.). (2016). Assuring institutional quality in open distance learning (ODL) in the developing contexts. New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, C. (1990). higher education-international education (Is it alone?). Oxford Review of Education, 16(3), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, C. (1985). Fitness for purpose: Essays in Higher education. Surrey: SRHE & NFER-NELSON.Google Scholar
  6. DeMaria, A. N. (2003). What constitutes a great review? Journal of American College of Cardiology, 42(7), 1314–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Francisco, J S., Ulrike Hahn, U., & Schwarz, H. (2017). Scholarly integrity. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 56, 4070–4071.Google Scholar
  8. Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. The Journal of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.Google Scholar
  11. Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sizo, A., Lino., Reis, L. P., and Rocha, A. (2019). An overview of assessing the quality of peer review report of scientific articles. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tarkang, E. E., & Bain, L. E. (2019). The Bane of Publishing a Research article in international journals by african researchers, the peer-review process and contentious issue of predatory journals: A commentary. PanAfrican Medical Journal, 32(119), 1–5.Google Scholar
  14. Taylor and Francis. (2015). Tips for publishing your research. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  15. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2006). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publicity. 38(2). 149–162.Google Scholar
  16. Van Rooyen, S., Black, N., & Godlee, F. (1999). Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(7), 625–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ward, P. C., Graber, K. C., & Mars, H. V. (2015). Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 34(4), 700–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNESCO Chair on Open Distance (ODL), University of South Africa (UNISA)PretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations