View source for Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:8c6bf00a-d760-47d8-9aa1-5f48c14ce3f5
|Title=Peer review card game
|Is About=The peer review card exchange game was developed by researchers from the University of Split School of Medicine as a hands-on training session for a summer school on peer review. <ref>Peer review card exchange game, available at: http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/</ref>  It is an educational tool designed to inform young researchers about integrity in peer review. The game is free to use, and available [http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/ here].
<references />
|Important Because=Peer review is an important part of scientific process, because it identifies both quality and possible flaws in submitted research, and offers room for improvement. However, the peer review process is not perfect, and is susceptible to a number of conflicts, dilemmas and insecurities. <ref>Hames I. Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century. Science Editing. 2014;1(1):4-8</ref><ref>Csiszar A. Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. 2016;532(7599):306-8. Epub 2016/04/26.</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; phd students; Supervisors; Postdocs; Reviewers
|Has Best Practice=The use of card exchange games is an approach used in teaching the philosophy of science. It was developed by Bergquist and Phillips in 1975 and later popularized by Cobern. <ref>Cobern WW. Introducing teachers to the philosophy of science: The card exchange. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1991;2(2):45-6.</ref> The idea of card games is to foster dialogue between participants about statements written on cards, and such games have been effective in improving students’ knowledge.

In the peer review card exchange game, six different domains of peer review are explored by different statements written on cards. Participants can agree or disagree with the statements, but they are asked to discuss them and reach a consensus as a group. The explored domains are: responsiveness, competence, impartiality, confidentiality, constructive criticism and responsibility to science. Participants have to find which cards they all agree on. After that, they participate in a moderated discussion.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0222fd27-0a12-4cac-a6ac-6cc37879f72c;Resource:6c0d6e13-17cb-4e94-b66b-510da74c700e;Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36;Theme:F723d94e-5010-4c4a-ad26-cf56fce97a1f;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2018
|Has Location=Croatia
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Reliability; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review; Publication Ethics
}}