Criteria of Peer-Reviewed Content

Transcription

1 Criteria f Peer-Reviewed Cntent Materials that are designated as peer-reviewed meet the fllwing criteria. They Are unbiased and research-based. Are apprpriately written fr an Extensin audience (aviding technical jargn and cmplex style), and the infrmatin is applied rather than philsphical r theretical. Are needs-driven the tpic addresses and respnds t an identified need.* Have applicatin acrss the state, within a particular regin f the state, r within a certain identified clientele grup (limited scpe shuld be identified early in the dcument). Are relevant t current VCE wrk the tpic pertains t a current prgram team. Exhibit a depth f schlarship that reflects innvative r new knwledge r the cmpilatin f existing knwledge in a new r innvative frmat r delivery methd. Cver a tpic in-depth, typically cnsisting f three r mre pages f infrmatin r the equivalent in electrnic frmat. Have been reviewed by peers and clleagues whse cmments and suggestins have been incrprated when apprpriate. * Identified need includes emerging tpics knwn t faculty members, federally defined needs, prgram team needs, and/r needs f a particular industry. These needs might nt be identified thrugh VCE agents r lcal needs assessments but still represent valid tpics t be addressed with VCE cntent. Submissin f Cntent and Peer-Review Prcess 1. The authr (see Ntes 1 and 4) cmpletes Part I f the Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm (VCE-747NP). Part I includes a justificatin and assessment f need, an abstract, and a suggested peer-review team. The authr submits an 2016 Virginia Tech Virginia Cperative Extensin prgrams and emplyment are pen t all, regardless f age, clr, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expressin, natinal rigin, plitical affiliatin, race, religin, sexual rientatin, genetic infrmatin, veteran status, r any ther basis prtected by law. An equal pprtunity/affirmative actin emplyer. Issued in furtherance f Cperative Extensin wrk, Virginia Plytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State University, and the U.S. Department f Agriculture cperating. Edwin J. Jnes, Directr, Virginia Cperative Extensin, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; M. Ray McKinnie, Interim Administratr, 1890 Extensin Prgram, Virginia State University, Petersburg.

2 electrnic packet t the department head (see Ntes 2 and 3). It is suggested that the electrnic packet be assembled in a clud-based file, such as Ggle Drive r Drpbx, r in a single file t be ed. The electrnic packet shuld include the fllwing items: The cmpleted Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm. The written publicatin cntent in a reviewable frmat (such as MS Wrd s that Track Changes can be implemented). Any phts r graphics that are part f the cntent. It is recmmended that phts and graphics be added t the end f the dcument fr purpses f the review. Hwever, the final dcument fr submissin must fllwing the guidelines listed at 2. The department head finalizes the list f peer reviewers. The recmmended peer reviewers are as fllws: One Virginia Tech r Virginia State University faculty member (within r external t the authr s hme cllege). One faculty member with applicable expertise external t Virginia Tech, Virginia State University, and VCE. Tw VCE agents. The makeup f the peer-review grup is at the department head s discretin. Fr example, there culd be ccasins when there are n qualified Virginia Tech r Virginia State faculty reviewers available, and the department head culd chse instead t select tw reviewers external t Virginia Tech r Virginia State. It is expected that the department head will fllw the suggested makeup f the peer-review grup whenever pssible. 3. The department head sends the cntent and a Peer Reviewer Feedback Frm (VCE-748NP) t each peer reviewer. (See Nte 3) 4. Peer reviewers return the cmpleted Peer Reviewer Feedback Frm and the dcument if changes were suggested n it t the department head, wh reviews the feedback. 5. If department head determines that the cntent shuld be published, he/she cmpletes Part II f the Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm and sends the packet back t the authr. 6. The authr makes the suggested revisins t the cntent and resubmits the materials t the department head fr review t ensure that the apprpriate edits were made. Upn satisfactry review, the department head signs Part III

3 f the Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm and returns it t the authr, alng with the final manuscript. 7. The authr then prepares the manuscript fr submissin fllwing the Preparing Yur Manuscript Fr Submissin Guidelines (VCE-751NP). Authrs are encuraged t use the Peer-Reviewed Cntent Template (VCE- 750NP) t help ensure that the cntent is prperly frmatted. 8. The authr submits (1) the revised manuscript, (2) the signed Authr Checklist (VCE-733NP), (3) the signed Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm, and (4) any additinal image r graphic files t the Office f Cmmunicatins and Marketing via the nline Prject Request System. The signed Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm and the Authr Checklist shuld be scanned and upladed t the Prject Request System. 9. Cmmunicatins and Marketing reserves the right t review the submissin materials and request changes prir t accepting the publicatin. 10. A Cmmunicatins and Marketing staff member will cntact authrs peridically t ntify them f the publicatin s status. Authrs might be asked t respnd t questins r apprve layut and artwrk. Authrs will be asked t respnd within a particular timeframe in rder t keep the publicatin mving thrugh the prcess. If fr sme reasn Cmmunicatins and Marketing des nt receive a respnse within 15 wrking days, the prject will be placed n hld until a respnse is received. Once a respnse is received, the jb will be reactivated and a new deadline established. Questins regarding the publicatins prcess shuld be directed t the VCE cmmunicatins manager. Waiver Request fr Peer-Review Prcedure Fr materials that have already undergne rigrus review thrugh anther avenue, a waiver might be granted. Fr example, a waiver might apply t cntent that was prduced thrugh a multistate r multiagency effrt r cntent that was prduced at a reginal r natinal level. Authrs wh want t publish cntent already peer-reviewed thrugh anther avenue shuld check the Waiver frm the peer-review prcess requested bx in Part I f the Peer-Reviewed Cntent Request Frm and prvide dcumentatin f wh reviewed the publicatin and justificatin fr wavier prir t submissin.

4 A waiver can be requested fr minr revisins t previusly published cntent. See Sectin V, Revisins. Revisins Authrs are expected t keep their cntent up t date, and they must submit revisins as fllws: 1. Minr revisins that d nt include substantive changes in cntent are submitted thrugh the abve prcess with a waiver f peer review (see Sectin IV, Waiver Request fr Peer-Review Prcedure). Cntent will remain in the frmat it was riginally published in (e.g., cntent with an existing VCE publicatin number will keep the riginal number). Examples f minr revisins culd include updating dllar amunts, references t plicies r legislatin, and website URLs; crrecting cntact infrmatin fr agencies r experts; r adding infrmatin. 2. Majr revisins (mre than ne quarter f the publicatin cntent changed) must meet the current guidelines fr peer-reviewed cntent and fllw the prcess abve. Previusly published cntent will be evaluated accrding t the current guidelines. Ntes Examples f majr revisins culd include changes in prcedures, recmmendatins, r prcesses; new r updated research citatins; and changes in referenced prducts. 1. In all instances, the term authr refers t any Virginia Cperative Extensin faculty member. 2. In all instances, the term department head refers t the authr s unit leader r the unit leader's designated representative. In the case f faculty members wh are nt attached t an academic department (such as 4-H faculty), the unit leader is the apprpriate VCE assciate directr. In the case f Virginia State University faculty members, the unit leader is the Virginia State Extensin administratr. In the case f VCE agents (see Nte 4), the unit leader is the apprpriate VCE assciate directr. 3. It is understd that the department head/unit leader might wish t delegate the management f the peer-review prcess t a faculty member (a designated

5 representative). It is expected that the unit leader will retain respnsibility fr the integrity f the prcess. 4. If the authr is an Extensin agent, the authr is encuraged t engage and discuss the publicatin's pririties, bjectives, utcmes, and utline with the subject-matter specialists r department head prir t the develpment f a publicatin. Subject-matter specialists will cnduct a search f existing literature fr ther materials that have similar utcmes and ensure that the prpsed publicatin des nt duplicate existing publicatins. Agent-authred materials shuld be submitted t the department that is assciated with the cllabrating specialist. 5. Shuld the authr disagree with the decisin f the peer-review prcess, the authr may appeal the decisin by explaining, in writing, the reasn fr the appeal and submitting it t the department head/unit leader. The respnsible party will respnd t the authr, in writing, within 10 business days, as t the actins that will be taken t reslve the appeal. Shuld there nt be an agreeable slutin, the authr may frward the appeal and the respnse t the VCE directr fr cnsideratin. Last updated: April 23, 2016