Call for ASRHE reviewers is now closed.
The ASRHE call for reviewers is now closed. Many thanks to everyone who expressed an interest in joining our team. We're delighted to announce that membership for the first set of review groups has been confirmed and our first introductory review group meetings have been held this month (November).
ASRHE editors look forward to working with their review groups in 2021.
ASHRE Review Process
ASRHE operates a group-based review process. Individual reviewers prepare draft reviews that are discussed in review group meetings. The review group, typically consisting of five to seven members, makes the review decisions. The reviewers know the identity of the authors; the authors are informed of the identity of the members of the review group that has reviewed their article. Review groups are led by a member of the editorial team.
ASRHE asks reviewers to:
- Commit to service for one calendar year;
- Attend 5 review meetings of approximately 2 hours each, scheduled at two-monthly intervals, conducted virtually;
- Prepare draft reviews for 3 articles (new or revised) per meeting within the 2 weeks before the meetings;
- Take responsibility for one article and work through issues after a meeting as required (assisted by colleagues depending on level of experience): Prepare a formal review within 2 weeks; communicate with authors to finalise articles for copy editing after acceptance or minor revisions decision;
- If required, assist less experienced review group members with their tasks.
ASRHE provides reviewers with a certificate outlining their contributions at the end of the year-long review period.
ASRHE Review Process Philosophy
ASRHE is committed to contributing to researcher development by including novice researchers into the review process (the editorial team ensures that review groups have the right balance of experience). Reviewing is a service to the academic community yet also a learning opportunity. Using a group-based review-process means to emphasise the learning opportunity. Discussions on strengths and weaknesses of articles take place in face-to-face virtual meetings. This provides the individual reviewer with more feedback than typically gained by formulating their review in isolation and being informed later of the editorial decision. The discussions include moderation between diverging review decisions. Instead of tasking an editor with making the review decision based on two separate reviews in isolation, the decision is arrived at within the meeting helped by all members of the group. The decision, incorporating potentially diverging views, is passed on to authors to ensure rich feedback.
Having a mix of levels of experience within the review groups provides inexperienced researchers the opportunity to participate in discussions early in their research careers and develop understanding of characteristics of strong research articles.
Reviewing for the journal requires a commitment to serve for one year. This commitment is higher than typically required when signing up as a reviewer. The reason for asking for a one-year commitment is to allow for stability of review groups, for relationship building and development as reviewer. At the end of the year reviewers will be ready to take on a more senior role in a review group or be ready to serve as reviewers in a traditional double-blind review process. The hope is that reviewers will look forward to the review meetings as times of stimulating intellectual exchange in a supportive atmosphere.
A clear schedule of review meetings aims at making the review process duration more predictable by reducing the steps in which delays can occur (editors selecting potential reviewers, reviewers accepting review, reviewers doing review, editors making decisions). The managing editor will oversee the allocation of submissions to review groups and keep an eye on review capacities.