Review, Revise, and Resubmit

Abstract

This paper highlights three industry initiatives currently working on ways to improve access to licensed electronic content. The three initiatives are KBART, IOTA, and PIE-J. Background information on OpenURL, link resolvers, and knowledge bases, as well as detailed descriptions of the access problems the initiatives were developed to solve, is provided. Understanding these initiatives can help those involved in the electronic serials supply chain improve their own work, communicate effectively with others, and advocate for adoption of best practices. Together, these initiatives hold great promise for a future with fewer broken links and improved access for users. L ibraries today rely heavily on electronic full-text content. Users like electronic access, but become frustrated when links to content do not work. The OpenURL standard ushered in a new and much improved way of linking to licensed electronic content, but despite broad adoption of OpenURL, links still fail and access to licensed content still eludes users more often than librarians would like. Even when links resolve correctly, users sometimes are unable to find what they seek because of how journal content is displayed on provider websites. This paper discusses some of the reasons behind failed access and describes in detail three industry initiatives currently working on ways to improve access to electronic content. The three initiatives are recommended practices for Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART), a two-year research project aimed at Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics (IOTA), and recommended practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J). While these initiatives will not solve all access problems, they offer solutions to specific, known causes of electronic access failure. Understanding exactly what they do can help those involved in the electronic serials supply chain improve their own work, communicate effectively with others, and advocate for adoption of best practices by publishers and other content providers. To fully understand the initiatives, background information is presented on OpenURL, link resolvers, and knowledge bases, as well as detailed descriptions of the access problems the initiatives were developed to improve. The ultimate goal of this paper is to enhance understanding of the work being done by KBART, IOTA, and PIE-J to provide those who deal with electronic access issues with the information they need to effect change and ultimately bring better service to users.

Perceived Helpfulness of Peer Editing Activities: First-Year Students' Views and Writing Performance Outcomes

“…It would seem that in such situations, repetitive peer editing opportunities might be rated as increasingly helpful. This was the finding of Stellmack et al (2012) when evaluating the benefits of self-critiques and peer reviews in research methods course where APA-style writing requirements were stressed. However, in courses involving one-time writing assignments with common underlying requirements, one peer review may suffice for most students, potentially saving class time for other activities.…”

“…One of the areas warranting further investigation with entering first-year college students is how varied their editorial comments are during peer editing tasks. A number of researchers have compared student and instructor comments on matching writing drafts and found many similarities (Gielen et al, 2010;Stellmack et al, 2012;Underwood & Tregidgo, 2005), particularly when steps are taken to increase understanding of assignment and grading requirements and the seriousness of the peer editing processes and when sufficient feedback is received (Cho & MacArther, 2011;Covill, 2010;Kaufman & Schunn, 2011;Li et al, 2009;McGroarty & Zhu, 1997). Given the variety of writing feedback, by type and amount, on the drafts collected in this study and by other researchers examining peer editing, issues of importance would seem to be quality of peer feedback (e.g., clarity of student writing suggestions, correction accuracy), and quality of the models provided by novice writers.…”

“…Such differences in the feedback provided by peers and instructors have not been shown to impact writing skill outcomes or grades (Kasanga, 2004;Li et al, 2011;Lin & Chien, 2009;Weaver, 2006;White & Kirby, 2005). Further, analyses of quality or validity of the feedback provided by both students and instructors have shown few differences overall (Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, & Smeets, 2010;Stellmack et al, 2012;Underwood & Tregidgo, 2005).…”

The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis

“…Finally, in case multiple types of scores were simultaneously reported as indicators of students' writing performance, scores were averaged into composite scores of academic writing performance. In the study by Stellmack et al (2012), for example, students' papers were graded by two different graders, effectively resulting in two grade-sets for the same writing tasks. These grade-sets were averaged before calculating effect sizes.…”

Diseño y utilización de rúbricas en la enseñanza universitaria: una aplicación en la titulación de Psicología

“…De este modo, en este trabajo también se pretende enfatizar su consideración como guías instruccionales para el desarrollo de las actividades académicas y proyectos de trabajo, así como su utilidad como soporte para la revisión y retroalimentación a proporcionar a los estudiantes, y no sólo como herramientas para calificar la calidad de sus elaboraciones finales (Stellmack, Keenan, Sandidge, Sippl, Konheim-Kalstein, 2012). …”