Online Session Locator

Session Description

Reviews of journal papers are notoriously harsh and oftentimes overwhelming. Authors may have difficulty navigating extensive and potentially conflicting reviews. There is no obvious necessary or positive outcome to these reviews or the challenges they present. The purpose of this special session is to have a structured discussion of why and how to provide reviews and editorial summaries that are useful and productive to authors, intended for current and future reviewers and editors. We will include the discussion of unintended consequences of negative and confusing reviews, examples of positive and useful AND negative and confusing reviews, and a discussion of how we can improve these processes as a field. Participants will be invited to both share experiences and ideas for supporting the field and each other in the publication process.

Speakers

1. Dr. Adam Kirn

   University of Nevada, Reno

   Adam Kirn, Ph.D. (he/him) is an Associate Professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. Regarding this special session proposal, he is interested in fostering intentionality and community through the publishing process.

2. Dr. Alexandra Coso Strong

   Cornell University

   Alexandra Coso Strong (she/her) is an Associate Professor at Cornell University. She is exploring approaches to reviewing that support her colleagues as people first and then engage with their work through a lens of curiosity and collaboration.

3. Dr. James L. Huff

   University of Georgia

   James Huff, Ph.D. (he/him) is an Associate Professor at the University of Georgia and Deputy Editor for the Journal of Engineering Education. As an author, editor, and reviewer, he aims for the review dialogue to be a constructive and relational process that builds up each other’s work.

4. Dr. Justin Charles Major

   Rowan University

   Justin Major, Ph.D. (they/them) is an Assistant Professor at Rowan University. They are interested in reflexivity in the research and publishing process.

5. Mrs. Monique S. Ross

   The Ohio State University

   Monique Ross, Ph.D. (she/her) is an Associate Professor at The Ohio State University. She is interested in adopting a reviewing practice that leads with an ethic of care and support rather than gatekeeping.

6. Dr. Shane A. Brown P.E.

   Oregon State University

   Shane Brown, Ph.D. (he/him) is a Professor at Oregon State University. He is interested in making the community better through reviewership and editorship.

7. Dr. Stephanie Cutler

   The Pennsylvania State University

   Stephanie Cutler, Ph.D. (she/her) is an Associate Research Professor at Penn State. She hopes to help encourage a review process that focuses on growth and community to create a positive disciplinary culture that promotes the success of all members.