CGScholar and Word Versions
Work Submission and Review Process
In order for your work to be routed for peer review, the following must be completed:
* Complete the prior course (i.e. you can not submit your special field prior to submitting your general)
* Complete the Admin Update prompts (you shouldn’t submit your projects before the relevant update requirements)
* Complete the prior project (you can not submit your LR before your AB)
* Follow the requirements of the relevant work (Literature Review genre. See also Academic Phrasebook.)
* Complete at least one peer review of someone else’s work
1. Create a new work In CGScholar Creator and provide a descriptive title along with the type of work.
2. Once the full draft is ready for peer review, request that your Work be linked to the LDL Doctoral Dissertation Sequence publisher (from the Publish tab within About this Work within Creator). (see screenshot)
3. The Graduate Assistant will complete an initial review and connect it to a project.
3. Once linked to a project, complete a self-review of the draft that is being routed for peer review.
For Subsequent incremental Dissertation works (i.e literature reviews, theory and methodology, etc.), use the duplicate feature in Scholar (under the Versions tab) to automatically copy your previous work and to begin building from that version. See next section
Each exam-dissertation seminar includes at least one peer-reviewed project that is meant to help build towards your final thesis. To help you do this, there is a Duplicate feature in CGScholar Creator. From the last saved version of your General Literature Review, Special Literature Review, Chapter 3 Part 1 (Theory), Chapter 3 Part 2 (Methodology Design), Chapter 3 Part 3 (Methodology Implementation), Preliminary Exam, and Final Dissertation, you should use the Duplicate feature to copy everything from your existing work automatically. Do not re-type everything. About this Work – Versions – select the Duplicate icon. Rename your work and re-add your work icon. Then add new sections to fulfill the next set of requirements.
Important! Don’t duplicate too early before you have revised your previous work, to avoid risking your “latest” work being inconsistent with what it really should be.
Students must complete the admin updates associated with each seminar prior to projects being submitted. If the prerequisite projects or community updates not been completed, the work will not be routed for peer review.
We rely on students following the Rubrics for each milestone prior to submitting a work for peer or advisor review. In most cases works will be routed to peer review within one to two days of being connected to the publisher. On a case-by-case basis, it may be necessary to return a work to the author prior to peer review. In order for peer reviews to be meaningful, the work must meet certain minimum requirements and certain quality standards.
A specific peer review rubric is provided for each peer-reviewed project and presentation to help guide you in the peer review and observation process. You can find the rubrics within the EDS Rubrics page.
There will be many informal opportunities for peer interaction in the examination-dissertation sequence, in the form of online community discussions, the student-led online community and the weekly synchronous sessions. 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, Bill and Angus Phillips (eds), The Future of the Academic Journal, Elsevier, 2014.
Once the full draft is ready for peer review, request that your Work be linked to the LDL Doctoral Dissertation Sequence publisher (from the Publish tab within About this Work within Creator). (see screenshot). Be sure to first check your work against the relevant rubric to make sure that it meets our minimum requirements.
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 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 dissertation courses.
Peer Review Assignments
Everyone will be assigned 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.
* We will send you a work to review, but if you are unavailable over the two week time period, you can turn down the request. Please respond quickly so we can find another reviewer if you are not available. Email the graduate assistant to let them know, since the reject feature does not work at the moment.
Peer Review Assignment Methodology
Ideally, we will try to arrange 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.
Authors should not submit their revised work until they receive their peer reviews.
Do not submit your revised work until you have received your peer reviews. If you have not received your three peer reviews within 10 days, contact the dissertation advisor or TA. Be sure to complete a self-review before submitting your work for advisor review.
Once you have revised your work based on peer review feedback, submit your work as a Word document (filename should include your name, a brief descriptive title, the work type, and the latest revision date) that is aligned with the Graduate College guidelines with a link to your work in CGScholar (at the top) to your the Dissertation Advisor (Dr. Francis) for pre-Faculty Advisor review. Make any necessary revisions.
After the preliminary review by the Dissertation Advisor, submit your work in the Graduate College approved format as a Word document (filename should include your name, a brief descriptive title, the work type, and the latest revision date) to Dr. Kalantzis and copy Dr. Francis for pre-committee review. She will let you know if your work is approved to move forward to examination.
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 four weeks based on your committee’s availability. You can begin working on the next step in the process while you wait for committee review. If you are ready to submit your next major milestone and have still not received committee feedback, please contact the Dissertation Advisor.
Preliminary and Final Examinations: Refer to their respective pages for specific instructions.
You shouldn’t start the IRB process too early, but you also shouldn’t let it get away from you. You would typically start this process when you are working on your methodology. And you should expect to have an approved IRB letter prior to your preliminary exam. But keep in mind that the IRB approval process takes time. Refer to the IRB process page for more details. You may need to submit an amendment after your methodology plan is reviewed by your advisor and/or after your preliminary exam.
Creating and Duplicating Works
- Create a New work for your General Field Literature Review.
- Duplicate your works going forward
- Each time, request to connect to the LDL Doctoral Dissertation Sequence publisher once it is ready for peer review
Key Exam-Dissertation Sequence Resources