Systemic Design Conversations about Reviewing #1

Conversation 1/2: Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice
A conversation hosted by Ryan Murphy with Peter Jones, Ruth Schmidt, and Katelyn Stenger
This set of hour-long systemic design conversations about reviewing concentrates on reviewing papers for conferences and journals. Bring your curiosity, stories, pragmatism, and the proverbial red pen.
These systemic design conversations are an opportunity to consider a range of topics, such as how reviewing is positioned in an academic career path and how it contributes to research and praxis. The sessions are recorded and aim to represent various perspectives and answer questions as a resource for people new to reviewing while offering fresh insights for established reviewers and editors.
An undercurrent for these sessions is acknowledging that academic norms are culturally and institutionally reinforced-and sometimes ripe for revisiting and questioning. The conversations start with points of view from some experienced and emerging reviewers on reviewing and then open to participants in an ask-me-anything format. For academics and practitioners, reviewing engagements are a way to offer authors professional experience and share domain knowledge through single- or double-anonymous review notes. The reviewing payback is the continuous improvement of writing and editing skills and expanded knowledge through exposure to new research. Topics related to reviewing extend to the (re)definition of scholarly practices, the role of metrics and researcher assessments, and barriers that limit the participation of early career researchers and practitioners. Although these issues will likely surface in the sessions, the primary goal is to throw the gate open and discuss what it means to review, who should review, and consider best practices.
For anyone new to reviewing or reviewing-curious, you are invited to think of these sessions as part of a developmental process. When you are getting started, you have the benefit of rules and procedural guidelines and can steadily advance these by applying them to a variety of cases. Reviewing reviewing this way can make it less daunting and help you connect with opportunities and participate in publishing communities.