Australasian Journal of Educational Technology |
| Finding reviewers | DOI (digital object identifier) |
| For novice reviewers | See also: FAQs - general |
| Finding reviewers |
>How did you get my name? [for an invitation to review for AJET]As we say on http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/rev-panel-current.html, 'AJET's reviewers are drawn quite widely from ASCILITE's membership, authors of AJET and ASCILITE Conference articles, and occasionally from other researchers with interests and expertise matching the articles to be reviewed. The contribution per reviewer per year is usually in the range 1-3 articles. To minimise overloads on reviewers, up to one half of AJET submissions are declined by editorial action without external review.'
To amplify that a bit, we scan through the last few years of AJET and ASCILITE Conference tables of contents, through rev-panel-current.html and previous years, ASCILITE members list, and some lists of reviewers for other publications and conferences that we work for. We check each article's references list for potential reviewers, we check university websites for more background and address verifications, sometimes we get help from Google and Google Scholar searches, and sometimes we follow up suggestions made by our reviewers or potential reviewers. The main aims are to find 'researchers with interests and expertise matching the articles to be reviewed', to get a range of kinds of reviewers (plenty of input from the more junior academics and from the Society membership generally), and to spread the work fairly (max two or occasionally three AJET reviews per person per year).
In your case, mainly your ASCxx paper, plus Google, plus [your university's website] http://www.xxx.edu.au/
>PS I also review for the British Journal of Educational TechnologyThat's good, we need multiple perspectives.
>P Please consider the environment before printing this email.Now that's different. There is a much older statement that used to go around, "This page is printed with 100% recycled electrons" :-)
>Hi Roger review enclosed. By the way, I did not realise that IAs to finding reviewers, we don't have a formal list, it's more like an algorithm! In your case, I checked one of the references cited in ajet-xx.doc, the [deleted] et al paper:
>'featured' as a reviewer for AJET?
[reference to a paper by this reviewer deleted]The algorithm is outlined in the heading to http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/rev-panel-current.html, and is slightly enlarged in http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/ref/author-advice.html#review
Your name also came up in ascilite membership records (I have a copy because I do all the AJET despatches). Concerning a comment in your preceding email:
>I completed it last night on the train. I am in the throws of typing itBecoming a chronic, habitual copy editor, I point out that you meant 'throes'. I do hope that reviewing for a journal is not all that bad... check throes in your dictionary, the Macquarie D entry includes: 'a violent spasm or pang; a paroxysm'.
>up and will mail it within the hour!
All the best and thank you again,
| DOI (digital object identifier) |
>Sorry to bother you but I have been asked to provide a a DOI (digitalNo problem, except that we don't do DOIs for AJET. Several times I started to look into it, but the the prospect of extra work, and the certainty of extra expense, put me off.
>object identifier) for my paper:
>[details deleted]
The main factor though is the feeling that an extra kind of identification, originating from the for-profit publishers, is not really warranted. We rely very much upon one of the huge successes of the Internet: the URL (uniform resource locator). What does a DOI do that is not done by an URL such as http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajetxx/xxx.html?
Some references (Aust. oriented):
The Digital Object Identifier System. http://www.doi.org/
Copyright Agency Limited.
http://www.copyright.com.au/
Copyright Agency Limited. About DOI.
http://www.copyright.com.au/doi.htm
Copyright Agency Limited - DOI and Coursepack.
http://www.doi.copyright.com.au/
By the way, CAL (http://www.copyright.com.au/) is to me like a windmill to Don Quixote. See Atkinson, R. (2006). Copyright: To remunerate or not to remunerate? Login. Journal of the Educational Computing Association of Western Australia, 20(1). http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/atkinson-mcbeath/roger/pubs/ecawa-login-art.html
Additional reference: CAL & OLI TAFE Qld (2004). Unchaining Educational Publishing in the Digital Age http://dx.doi.org/10.1275/1014
| For novice reviewers |
>I would be happy to review the article. It is in my area and soundsAs a matter of policy we draw our reviewers "quite widely from ASCILITE's membership, authors of AJET and ASCILITE Conference articles, and occasionally from other researchers with interests and expertise matching the articles to be reviewed." Experience in writing a successful paper (as you have done for asc06) and matching interests (as indicated by content of your asc06 paper and your institutional role) is more important than experience as a reviewer. We do have 2-3 reviews per paper, plus editorial input, so we are never reliant upon a single opinion.
>interesting.
>
>I should let you know though, that my experience is not great - I have
>only peer reviewed two articles for conference. If you change your mind,
>I completely understand. Thanks for the offer.
We don't have much regard for academic rank (prof, assoc prof, sen lect, etc) in seeking reviewers, mainly because within our experience the correlation between academic rank and insightfulness, helpfulness and quality of reviewing is not especially good. Another factor is long range, the continuous induction of a new generation of reviewers is important.
Having said all that (you did ask!), files attached.