## PLEASE REPLY TO THE WHOLE GROUP ##

Speaking of my experience of providing peer reviews here, at JRP, over
the past 18 months or so, and my engagement with postgraduate studies
over the past few years, I have the following responses:

1. 30/70 % Figure:
Most of the papers I have reviewed (11 so far, with 2 revisions)
appear to be contributions from folk in the process of undertaking
postgraduate research to obtain a postgraduate qualification, and/or
who have found themselves working in a area of research new to them,
and have been 'surprised' by the challenges the process of research
has thrown up to them.

At the two universities where I have had most recent contacts,
postgraduate degree supervisors and support services staff encourage
students to work with their writing, and to try and get published.

It seems to me, then, that JRP is attracting some of this level of
writing and submitting for publication consideration, and that 30/70
rejection may be appropriate.

My interests in reviewing, in such a context, are: does my work, in
reviewing, help the writer work some more with their material, and
have some benefit from my inputs?

2. "Journal of Research Practice":

My understanding of the purpose of something like a "Journal of
Research Practice" is that it is focused on the practice of research.
To write for such a journal involves some element of "research of
research" - what I and others call a "second-order" process. Such
second-order processes often run the risk of confusion: unless we are
very conscious of the problem, we do not have/use different language
for it; and we lose sight of the process when we are needing to write
about it in the context of research of other "content".

It is often usual, and appropriate, to find discipline specific
methodology discussions dealt with in the discipline specific journals.

Something like JRP brings such discussion to a different forum, and
perhaps for a different purpose: to consider what we can learn about
improving the practice of research from examining the practice of
research in a multitude of fields.

3. Bringing these two points together:

I would expect that student writing about 'research practice' - while
important, and pertinent to the student - is probably premature for
the student to seek to have published, and of limited value to the
field.

However, one of the things I try to keep in mind is what the more
experienced can learn from engaging openly and appreciatively with a
novice - their descriptions of grappling with the learning of the
process can challenge and so provide re-freshed insights to the
experienced practitioner.

I wonder how we, as peer reviewers, can be of most help to such new
explorers, while also considering what it is we are learning about the
process of research, and writing about research, from the novice's
reporting of their experience, and their struggles with writing such a
report.

Dianne Allen
KIAMA, AUSTRALIA



--- In Research_Practice@yahoogroups.com, "D. P. Dash" <dpdash@...> wrote:
>
> ## PLEASE REPLY TO THE WHOLE GROUP ##
>
> Dear Research_Practice Members,
>
> The JRP Peer Review Process continues to be worth discussing.
>
> H i g h l i g h t s
>
> Issues/Questions arising from this discussion:
>
> (a) Is the Web-based journal technology alienating?
> (b) Why are some authors not submitting revisions? (I think, we have
had 2-3
> cases of this.)
> (c) Are authors submitting to JRP to get feedback to publish elsewhere?
> (d) Could we have an article on what makes a good JRP article?
> (e) Could we have a typology of articles published in JRP?
> (f) Could we restate the scope and objectives of the journal more
clearly?
> (g) Could we give a list of areas on which we are looking for
contributions?
> (h) Could we mentor aspiring authors?