I have a passing thought that I will share. I recently read a few articles about how computer generated papers have been submitted into some very respectable journals. Between 2008-2013 papers were submitted and have now been withdrawn. This got me thinking about the papers I have read, unclear messages, rambling comments etc. It’s no wonder that these papers got past the reviewers. If they don’t make sense anyway, how would they know the difference?
Questions that immediately came to mind for me is what does this mean for the papers that we submit for conferences? What does this say about the people who review the content and hear us talk? If the messages are unclear, how can anyone benefit from the research?
It would be interesting to see if we upped the levels of digital literacies, critical thinking and information filtering, if that would make any difference to the outcomes?
Maybe its time we change the review process? I don’t have the answers, just sharing my random thoughts about processes.
photo credit: Orin Zebest via photopin cc
Double Digit Education 