skip to main content

Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Jensen, K."

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. This is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinary background and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’ determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To what extent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced by reviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extent does mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscript evaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and mentees in a peer review professional development program. Participants reviewed the same two manuscripts, using a form to identify strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Responses were coded by two researchers (70% IRR). Our findings suggest that disciplinary background influences reviewers’ evaluation of EER manuscripts. We also found evidence that professional development can improve reviewers’ understanding of EER disciplinary conventions. Deeper understanding of the epistemological basis for manuscript reviews may reveal ways to strengthen professional preparation in engineering education as well as other disciplines.
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 29, 2023
  2. This paper describes the Engineering Education Research (EER) Peer Review Training (PERT) project, which is designed to develop EER scholars’ peer review skills through mentored reviewing experiences. Supported by the National Science Foundation, the overall programmatic goals of the PERT project are to establish and evaluate a mentored reviewer program for 1) EER journal manuscripts and 2) EER grant proposals. Concurrently, the project seeks to explore how EER scholars develop schema for evaluating EER scholarship, whether these schema are shared in the community, and how schema influence recommendations made to journal editors during the peer review process. To accomplish these goals, the PERT project leveraged the previously established Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) Mentored Reviewer Program, where two researchers with little reviewing experience are paired with an experienced mentor to complete three manuscript reviews collaboratively. In this paper we report on focus group and exit survey findings from the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program and discuss revisions to the program in response to those findings.
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 29, 2023
  3. Free, publicly-accessible full text available January 1, 2023
  4. Free, publicly-accessible full text available January 1, 2023
  5. This paper describes a peer reviewer mentoring program called the Engineering Education Research Peer Review Training (EER PERT) project and serves as a pilot study on longitudinal effects on researchers’ productivity and the impact of their work, differences in these factors for those who review journal manuscripts and those who review grant proposals, and what aspects of peer review training (knowledge, resources, collaborations, etc.) participants actually carry forward in their own research. Overall, the project seeks to investigate how engineering education research (EER) scholars develop skills and schema for reviewing scholarship, particularly in terms of developing constructive reviews that build expertise and advance knowledge. The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) Mentored Reviewer Program constitutes the first phase of the EER PERT project. In this paper, we report on goals, structure and activities for the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program, pilot data from participants’ applications and exit surveys that will inform the EER PERT project in terms of participants’ developing skills and schema for reviewing and conducting EER, and provide initial suggestions from the training program that may benefit scholars new to EER.
  6. Abstract Three new cestode species are described from the crocodile shark ( Pseudocarcharias kamoharai ) in Ecuador. All three were examined with light and scanning electron microscopy. The unique combination of morphological features in one of the new species prompted formal investigation of the non-monophyly of Paraorygmatobothrium relative to the morphologically similar genera Doliobothrium , Guidus , Marsupiobothrium , Nandocestus , Orectolobicestus , Ruhnkecestus and Scyphophyllidium . Sequence data generated for part of the 28S rDNA gene were subjected to maximum likelihood (ML) analysis. The resulting tree led to the synonymization of six of these seven genera with Scyphophyllidium , and transfer of their species to the latter genus. With the new species, the number of described members of Scyphophyllidium is now 45. The diagnosis of Scyphophyllidium is revised to accommodate these species. In addition, to expedite future descriptions, eight categories of Scyphophyllidium species are circumscribed, based largely on bothridial features. Scyphophyllidium timvickiorum n. sp. is a category 1 species. Beyond being the smallest category 1 species, it bears, rather than lacks, apical suckers and lacks, rather than bears, strobilar scutes. The two other new species are members of Clistobothrium . Clistobothrium amyae n. sp. differs from its congeners inmore »bothridial shape, elongate cephalic peduncle and tiny size. Clistobothrium gabywalterorum n. sp. differs from the two of its congeners that also possess foliose bothridia in overall size and testis number. Despite their substantial morphological differences, the ML tree indicates they are sister taxa. Both are unique among their congeners in possessing cephalic peduncle spinitriches. The diagnosis of Clistobothrium is revised accordingly.« less