دانلود رایگان مقاله چارچوب انگیزه ای بررسی دقیق یک روش کیفی

عنوان فارسی
چارچوب انگیزه ای بررسی دقیق: یک روش کیفی
عنوان انگلیسی
Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach
صفحات مقاله فارسی
0
صفحات مقاله انگلیسی
11
سال انتشار
2016
نشریه
الزویر - Elsevier
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی
PDF
کد محصول
E3991
رشته های مرتبط با این مقاله
مدیریت
مجله
مجله مدیریت اروپایی - European Management Journal
دانشگاه
گروه مدیریت، دانشکده اقتصاد و مدیریت کسب و کار، دانشگاه Babes¸ -Bolyai،رومانی
کلمات کلیدی
بررسی دقیق، چارچوب انگیزه ای، هزینه های نقد و بررسی و مزایا، تجزیه و تحلیل موضوعی، انگیزه تراکم، معضل داوطلب
چکیده

abstract


There is an ongoing need to support high-quality research publications that requires a greater emphasis on the role of the peer review process. The difficulties faced by editors in finding committed reviewers and in avoiding delayed review reports, as well as the frequency of failure in manuscript error detection, all stress the need to identify incentive strategies that will ensure high-quality peer reviews. Based on a qualitative approach, this paper explores referees' decision frames when reviewing, the characteristics of the review behaviour, and the associated benefits and costs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 journal referees. The results highlight the motivating factors that affect the decision to review, or not to review. Two motivation frames-of-reference were identified: that of a prospective member of the scientific community focused on self-achievement vs. that of a member of the scientific community focused on the group. Different situational cues activate a particular frame: the match between reviewer's expertise and the manuscript topic, the identification with the scientific community, and the quality of the journal. The findings suggest strategies able to minimize referees' perceived costs when reviewing. This research sheds new light on the strategies that have the potential to boost the peer review process.

نتیجه گیری

5. Concluding remarks and further research


According to the motivation frame applied, the current research results show differences in how reviewers perceive both the review process and the benefits of reviewing. When the referee perceives the review as a member of the scientific community focused on the group, the review behaviour is ruled by the reciprocal duty to contribute. When the referee applies the frame prospective member of the scientific community focused on self-achievement, doing reviews is perceived as an opportunity for progress in the academic career.


بدون دیدگاه