More Like this

1. Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111615118  

   Gross, Kevin; Bergstrom, Carl T. (December 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   Peer review is an integral component of contemporary science. While peer review focuses attention on promising and interesting science, it also encourages scientists to pursue some questions at the expense of others. Here, we use ideas from forecasting assessment to examine how two modes of peer review—ex ante review of proposals for future work and ex post review of completed science—motivate scientists to favor some questions instead of others. Our main result is that ex ante and ex post peer review push investigators toward distinct sets of scientific questions. This tension arises because ex post review allows investigators to leverage their own scientific beliefs to generate results that others will find surprising, whereas ex ante review does not. Moreover, ex ante review will favor different research questions depending on whether reviewers rank proposals in anticipation of changes to their own personal beliefs or to the beliefs of their peers. The tension between ex ante and ex post review puts investigators in a bind because most researchers need to find projects that will survive both. By unpacking the tension between these two modes of review, we can understand how they shape the landscape of science and how changes to peer review might shift scientific activity in unforeseen directions. 

   more » « less
2. Assessing the Development of Digital Scientific Literacy With a Computational Evidence-Based Reasoning Tool

   https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221081484  

   Holincheck, Nancy; Galanti, Terrie_M; Trefil, James (April 2022, Journal of Educational Computing Research)

   The evolving digital world requires scientifically literate citizens who are able to critically evaluate Internet sources of varying credibility. Instruction on evidence evaluation in postsecondary education often focuses on peer-review as a singular indicator of credibility. With increased access to web-based scientific information, students must also learn to think critically in real-time about the dimensions of credibility. This study describes the integration of sInvestigator, a computational evidence-based scientific reasoning tool, with a class of 32 students in an undergraduate honors course focused on socio-scientific issues. A cross-disciplinary team of researchers with expertise in science education, scientific literacy, and evidence evaluation developed and implemented an online questionnaire to measure students’ development of digital scientific literacy. After using sInvestigator to evaluate sources of scientific evidence based on publisher reputation, author competence, and author objectivity, students were better able to assess the credibility of online information. Results of this study also confirm the potential to authentically assess students’ use of author and publisher information to evaluate digital scientific sources. The need for further research on the operationalization and measurement of digital scientific literacy is discussed. 

   more » « less
3. Exploring racial equity in the science education journal review process

   https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21719  

   Nkrumah, Tara; Mutegi, Jomo W. (September 2022, Science Education)

   Across a broad range of disciplines, research has found that inequity is systemic in the journal review process. Collectively, however, this study does not specifically examine racial inequity. Moreover, literature on the peer review process in science education, in particular, does not foreground equity as a subject of study. The present study aims to address this void by examining racial equity in the peer review process with a specific focus on journals in science education. Data are collected from lead editors of major science education journals through the form of interviews, focus groups, and critical arts-based methods. The two research questions driving data collection are (a) In what ways does the science education journal peer review process promote racial equity? and (b) How are science education journal editors’ perceptions of racial inequity reflected in the peer review process? McNair and colleagues’ racial equity framework informs the explorations of journal review in science education from the lead editors’ perspectives. From our findings, we offer four suggestions for moving toward greater racial equity in the science education peer review process. 

   more » « less
4. Engineering Design in Scientific Inquiry

   Atkins Elliott, Leslie (January 2019, American Society of Engineering Education)

   The Engineering Design in Scientific Inquiry (EDISIn) Project addresses the engineering preparation of secondary science teachers by embedding engineering design into a science course for single-subject STEM education majors (future secondary teachers), and developing a sequence of lesson plans and annotated video for faculty who seek to embed engineering design in their science courses. While undergraduate laboratories are rich with designed experimental apparatus, it is rare that students themselves play a role in designing and producing artifacts in the service of scientific inquiry. Our expectation is that (1) existing science courses offer opportunities for students to engage meaningfully with engineering practices, by solving design challenges that emerge in the construction of scientific ideas; and (2) doing so can capitalize on existing curricula that science education has developed, facilitating the adoption of engineering design into preservice teacher education. As part of NSF’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) funding program, this proposal is part of a broader effort to transform undergraduate science education, preparing students to be innovators and leaders in STEM. 

   more » « less
5. Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication

   https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21733  

   Bancroft, Senetta F.; Ryoo, Kihyun; Miles, Monica (September 2022, Science Education)

   While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review. 

   more » « less