The rest of them, though, involved multiple rounds of peer review. For example, my review on flipped learning and student engagement was initially rejected – I submitted it in April 2019, and received the Reject & Resubmit notification on 13 October 2019 – this was after a round or two of peer review! I then reworked and resubmitted the article, and received notification on Christmas Day 2019 that it had been accepted. It was then published in February 2020.
I really didn't think that there was much difference between the length of publication process for systematic review articles, as opposed to other types of articles, so I decided to do a quick analysis of my publications. In terms of the systematic review articles, two were published in the International Journal of Educational Technology, one in the Asian Journal of Distance Education, one in Computers & Education, and one in the CITE Journal. Two of the other journals were published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, two in the British Journal of Educational Technology, one in the International Journal of Educational Technology, and one in the Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Analysis of publication process length
Much like the approach taken by Dr Shannon Mason in her article on PhDs by publication, here is an indication of how long my systematic review articles have taken to get published, in comparison to my other primary research and theoretical articles:
I actually found the results of my analysis quite surprising. Aside from my rapid review, which was incredibly quick through the peer review process, the least amount of time to an initial response that I had for a systematic review article was 47 days. On average, it actually took 19 days longer to receive an initial response to a systematic review article, and 40 days longer to final acceptance, with the overall process taking 66 days longer on average for the entire publication process. However, when compared to Mason's (2018) articles, the length of publication for my other articles was actually 24 days quicker on average, and the systematic review articles 42 days slower.
I suspect that one of the major reasons why the length of the peer review and publication process for my systematic review articles was so much longer, is the difficulty journals have in securing reviewers with the requisite knowledge of systematic review methodology. However, this seems like an area, ripe for further exploration in the future. What I my recommendations for conducting reviews?
For further thoughts on conducting systematic reviews, please see this open access book chapter I co-wrote with my ActiveLearn colleagues.
Suggested citation:
Bond, M. (2021). Are systematic reviews "harder" to get published? http://drmelissabond.weebly.com/blog/are-systematic-reviews-harder-to-get-published
0 Comments
Embedding a Twitter timeline on your website can be a fantastic way to connect people visiting your website to the other conversations that you are having on Twitter. It can also then prompt visitors to follow you. I have one embedded on my home page here and I also have it on the COER website. If you have a Weebly website, please follow the following steps:
For more help, you could visit this website or watch the video below. ActiveLeaRn Project: Facilitating student engagement with digital media in higher education
27/6/2017
Stage 1: Exploration of the research fieldUsing the software Leximancer, we are analysing 10,706 journal articles from 26 international journals that relate to the fields educational technology, instructional design or distance education. By using the text mining tool, we can create concept maps that identify thematic areas, key concepts and research trends across the last ten years. Figure below: Concept map of overall scope of the 26 journals, 2007-2016 (n = 10,706) Our research questions are:
What is my role in this stage?
Stage 2: Systematic ReviewA systematic review is "a review of research literature using systematic and explicit, accountable methods” (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2012, p. 2). It involves a lengthy amount of time at the beginning to organise a search strategy, figuring out exactly how you're going to conduct a search that will yield the results you want. Our research question is:
Once we have finalised our search strategy, we are going to search in four major databases (Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC and PsycINFO) with our search string. We will then go through and screen all of the articles to assess whether or not they should be included in the review, using a set of very stringent conditions for inclusion. Given that our initial searches have returned some 13,000 results, this stage may take a considerable amount of time, but thankfully we will be using EPPI Reviewer 4.0, which is software especially designed to handle systematic reviews. The result of our systematic review will hopefully be a synopsis of conditions through which universities can support and facilitate student engagement and successful learning. What is my role in this stage?
Stage 3: Communicative validation with e-learning expertsThe results of the study will be validated through qualitative research, in order to examine whether the statements identified by the content analysis and systematic review can be confirmed with practical examples. Interviews will be conducted with academics, who currently work (or did work) with digital learning projects at universities in Duisburg Essen and Oldenburg. Focus groups will also be conducted with academics from various faculties (for example Arts, Sciences, Engineering, Medicine) who use eLearning in their teaching. What is my role in this stage? To be honest, I'm not sure yet - we are currently trying to finish off Stage 1 and have already started Stage 2, which I imagine will keep me very busy for some time, but I will definitely keep you updated! How does this project link to my PhD?I am also looking at student engagement within my PhD, however with more of a focus on K-12. I will also be conducting a content analysis and systematic review as part of my PhD, as I have undergone training and it makes sense for me to apply these skills. I also really enjoy both research methods... I will use the systematic review search strategy to inform my own, with the search and screening process mirroring the project. After more information about the ActiveLeaRn project?Please don't hesitate to contact me or email Professor Michael Kerres or Professor Olaf Zawacki-Richter. Feel free to also connect with us on Research Gate. ReferencesGough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Hrsg.), An introduction to systematic reviews (S. 1–16). London [u.a.]: SAGE.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011. 598505 |
AuthorMelissa is an EPPI-Reviewer Support Officer at University College London and a researcher. She worked for 10 years as a high school teacher in country South Australia, followed by three years as a Research Associate at the Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany. Categories
All
Archives
January 2022
|