The EDS Progress Report is an online form to help us stay in communication with every student at least once per term (twice per semester; six times per year). You should have created an initial EDS Progress Report when you began the EDS.

Once you are ready for your full milestone to be submitted for peer review, be sure to update the EDS Progress Report and indicate which milestone is ready, include the details regarding the milestone, such as your tentative research question, general and/or special field, links to your update samples in the community, etc. and then check the box to notify the advisor.
The advisor will then invite you to the relevant project in CGScholar. See above for the instructions on how to connect an existing work to a work request.

You will receive a work request after you have submitted your EDS Progress Report and the admin sets up your project in Scholar. Please allow a couple of days for your request to be processed. You may continue working in the most current version of your work. Your work should be duplicated just before your work is ready to be submitted for peer review.

The work request will prompt you to start a new work or to choose an existing work.

Do not start a new work for subsequent milestones or to connect a work that you have already started.
Subsequent milestones should follow the “duplicate a version” process and should be the most up-to-date version of your cumulative work.
Choose an existing work does not mean to choose a work that you have already routed for peer review. This should refer to the work that you duplicated in the previous steps.

Reminders:

Be sure to check your work against the relevant rubric to make sure that it meets our minimum requirements.
As stated in a previous section, you will receive a work request from CGScholar prompting you to create or connect your work to the project.
Do not start a new work for subsequent milestones, as those should follow the “duplicate a version” process mentioned above.

Submission Steps:

Submit the milestone in Scholar with the Word document attached once ready for pre-peer review
Input a note into the dialogue
Complete a Self-Review

Once you have submitted your work for any step in the review and revision process, you may begin on the next milestone, understanding that you will be returning to the pervious milestone after each review cycle. You may continue adding content to the current milestone, just include a note somewhere that indicates what is considered as “in progress”. Do not duplicate anything in CGScholar until you receive the Work Request for the subsequent milestone.

At each stage in this process, there will be requests for revisions – some will be major while others will be minor. Rely on the comments in the rubric and/or dialogue to determine your next steps.

The following applies to all stages of this process, but will only be stated here (once).

?After the initial submission, author receives a notification asking for a revised version
View the rubric review from the peer and/or instructor and/or the dialogue for comments
Revise the CGScholar version
Add Change Notes – be specific, including what you changed or didn’t change and wny
Depending how the Word version is being maintained, optionally preview in browser and copy and paste to Word; update the filename to reflect the correct revision date
Attach updated Word version (remove the old one from the latest version)
Make sure that your work is saved as a new version (small check box that appears when you hover over the save button, then click save). You will see a version number and a date to reflect what has been saved. The “current” version implies that it is in progress, so you should never submit a “current” version except the very first submission.
Submit new version

Depending on the quality of the resubmission, the review and revision process may repeat multiple times. The due date of a particular step will not change, but can be ignored (but CGScholar may send you a notification that something is overdue). Each student is responsible for establishing their own timeline goals.

The dissertation advisor will conduct a preliminary, high level review prior to peer review. The purpose of this review step is to ensure that peer reviewers can focus their time on more important review elements. The review will include the following:

Rubric ratings and comments
Tracked changes Word attachment, partially reviewed; looking for patterns
Marked as a new version, differentiating it from the version originally submitted

Revision Request or Routed for Peer Review

If the submission does not meet minimum requirements or has a large volume of issues, it will be sent back prior to being routed for peer review. CGScholar will trigger a notification asking you to submit revisions.
If it is eligible for peer review, peer reviewers will receive a notification from CGScholar with a deadline of about 6 days, but we understand if reviewers need 2 weeks.

Note that even if routed for peer review, there may be feedback that authors need to consider in their next submission. Refer to the dialogue and/or rubric comments.

While the current milestone is undergoing the peer review and subsequent review processes, the author continues working in the current work to populate their next milestone (ie. Special Field) if ready to add to CGScholar. These edits are not visible to peer reviewers, but will minimize rework of maintaining simultaneous CGScholar versions [include in change notes that this part of the work/ this milestone is still a draft].

Do not duplicate your work yet. Refer to the instructions at the end of this list regarding how to duplicate a work.

You will receive a revision request email notification – however, it is possible you will have not yet received all peer reviews
Do not submit your revised work until you have received your peer reviews.
It is possible you were only assigned two peer reviews
If you have not received your three peer reviews within 10 days, contact the dissertation advisor.
Revise the milestone in the light of peer feedback.
Update the Change Notes, be specific; what did you change or not change and why?
When ready for post peer review, update the CGScholar version and attach the updated Word document (update the version date in the filename before uploading) in the first element.
Optionally, select Preview > View in Browser. Select all, copy and paste into a Word file and attach that.
While Word documents that follow the Graduate College guidelines are encouraged from the beginning, they are not required until you arrive at Chapter 3.
Submit the revision in CGScholar
Complete a Self-Review

Once reviewed, you will receive a notification from the system informing you that the work can advance to faculty review or requires minor or major revisions.

Similar to the previous steps, you will receive a revision request. This will be true whether there are major or minor edits needed. Refer to the dialogue whether or not the work has been advanced to Faculty Review.

Author receives a notification asking for a revised version
View the rubric review from the instructor and/or the dialogue for comments
Revise the CGScholar version
Add Change Notes
Depending how the Word version is being maintained, optionally preview in browser and copy and paste to Word; update the filename to reflect the correct revision date
Attach updated Word version (remove the old one from the latest version)
Submit new version
Optionally, add a note in the dialogue
Optionally, complete another self-review

The official committee examination process does not take place within CGSCholar.

General and Special Field Examination: Once approved to proceed to examination, complete the exam request form to officially submit your work for committee examination. After you fill out the form, you’ll receive an email in a day or two with a prompt to upload the Word version of your work. Make sure that this is a clean version free of all comments, change notes, etc. (filename should include your name, a brief descriptive title, the work type, and the latest revision date) The committee review may take up to eight weeks based on your committee’s availability. You can continue working on the next milestone in the process while you wait for committee review.

Preliminary and Final Examinations: Refer to their respective pages for specific instructions.

Your final dissertation must be submitted as a Word/PDF document. In addition to the stages referred to above, the Final Dissertation has some additional steps. Once each step is approved, advance yourself to the next one

Upload your final dissertation Word document to CGSCholar for your official faculty advisor’s review
Send your approved (by your faculty advisor) PDF to Grad Services for the departmental Review (via email)
Upload your approved (by the College of Education department reviewer) PDF to the Thesis Deposit submission form for Graduate College review
Upload your final PDF dissertation (approved by the Graduate College) and final defense PPT to your CGScholar project

There will be many informal opportunities for peer interaction in the exam-dissertation sequence, in the form of online community discussions, the student-led online community and the weekly synchronous group advising sessions. We also encourage peer-initiated connections, such as through establishing writing groups or attending virtual or in-person meet-ups.

However, perhaps the most important aspect of the course sequence is the formal peer review process. The peer review process is intended to be a learning and assessment exercise that will strengthen your own work in addition to providing feedback to your peers. Our approach is both traditional and innovative.

For some centuries now, peer review has been the formal process for evaluating and validating scholarly knowledge. This is the basis of scholarly journal and book publishing. Today is also a time of great innovation, spurred by developments in digital media and publishing technologies. For more about our thinking in this area, see Cope, B. & Phillips, A. (eds) (2014). The future of the academic journal, Elsevier.

There may be occasions where a submission aligns with the research interests or knowledge/experience of another student who has not arrived at the same stage in their doctoral journey. We may reach out to you and/or assign you a peer review for a specific work prior to you arriving at that milestone. It is not necessary that you have begun or enrolled in the exam-dissertation sequence/courses to begin the peer review process. Here are some reasons to join early:

* Connect with others who have similar or complementary research interests.
* Help you define or refine your research interests.
* Become familiar with the exam-dissertation process and deliverables.
* Guide you in your elective course selections.
* Learn new content, best practices, and how to critically analyze others’ works.
* Enhance your deliverables associated with your regular LDL courses and the exam-dissertation courses, no matter where you might be in your own journey.

Everyone will be assigned two or three peer reviews per project. Sometimes, the work you are reviewing may be somewhat off topic because another person needs a review and your in queue to be assigned a review, but that is not always a bad thing.

* We expect students to complete at least one peer review prior to completing their own project.
* You are assigned peer reviews to works at all stages in the process. So you may not have completed that specific work yourself yet or you maybe completed it many months ago.

Peer Review Assignment Methodology
Ideally, we will try to arrange two to three reviews for you based on the following criteria, though it may not always work out this neatly!
* At least one reviewer may be someone earlier in the process
* At least one reviewer may be further along in the process
* At least one reviewer may be in a similar stage as you
* At least one reviewer has a similar interest, research topic, or background experience (we do the best we can on this one)

We ask for timeliness in completing reviews in order for authors to be able to continue progressing to the next step. We typically set the deadline to be 6 to 10 days, but if you need 14 days, just let us know. CGScholar will show the deadline as about 6 days, and authors will receive a “revision request” at that time, but we ask authors to wait the 14 days (or until all three reviews have come in. If all three have not come in by the 14 days, check with the TA so that we can follow up with your reviewers again to confirm if/when they plan to complete the requirement)

A meaningful peer review should take two to three hours to complete. Refer to the rubric and the guidelines for each milestone when completing the review. A helpful review will speed up the subsequent review and revision processes for the author – so be as honest as possible.

Authors should not submit their revised work until they receive their peer reviews. And authors should carefully consider the peer review feedback and how to apply it.