Hi @may23cohort! I was just looking at the calendar and we only have four more sessions in phase one, this has gone by really quickly! The final four sessions will be really helpful for you once you are nearing completion of your projects, but we all think that having all the information about the complete publication process is rewarding while you are creating.
Tomorrow we’ll discuss review and feedback strategies. Here are the Week 9 slides and handout . We’ll cover different kinds of reviews and discuss workflows for these processes.
If you have any particular questions before the session on Review and Feedback, please reply to this thread and we can bring these questions into our discussion tomorrow.
See you then!
I’m coming in late today. See you soon
Take 10 minutes to freely write your responses to ANY of these prompts:
- How will your team attempt to manage the effects of bias in the review process?
- How will your team invite a more diverse range of reviews and value a broad range of perspectives?
- What non-traditional subject matter experts you’d like to work with? (students, community members, etc.)
- What project specific questions you would like to ask during the review process?
Afterwards, peruse others’ comments. We’ll also reflect as a group. Thank you!
Thanks for letting me/us know, @kincanj, see you soon!
1 & 2: We will need to balance the diversity of our reviewers in terms of both personal identities and scientific expertise, in order to reduce bias and include a broad range of perspectives. Our biggest challenge is that this is not a large field, and so options for each chapter will be limited.
- We plan to include student feedback in the review process, from Deep-Sea Bio students at URI and BC, but after more traditional peer review for comprehensiveness and accuracy of the content.
How will your team invite a more diverse range of reviews and value a broad range of perspectives?
The classroom is an obvious place to get feedback from a diverse group of students, but I believe one of the goals of the book content is to include diverse voices from different populations. As part of this collaborative process, perhaps including sharing the publication in advance with these members for review could be a part of that?
About bias, I think using a reviewer rubric and/or checklist would help greatly. I think we could also share some resources, for example, the UCLA’s series on implicit bias, with our reviewers as a refresher to help the intentionality of mitigating bias in the review process.