𖧹/△ Fulcra

Unknown

user: I am soon going to be hosting two conversations on “reviewing reviewing,” as mentioned in Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community.

How should I prepare for the sessions?

user: I am soon going to be hosting two conversations on “reviewing reviewing,” as mentioned in Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community.

How should I prepare for the sessions?

ai: Based on your notes, preparing for hosting two conversations on “reviewing reviewing” involves several key steps to ensure the sessions are engaging, informative, and meet the learning outcomes you’ve outlined. Here’s a detailed approach to preparation:

1. Familiarize Yourself with the Content and Goals: Start by thoroughly understanding the content of the sessions, including the topics to be discussed, the speakers, and the intended learning outcomes. For “Reviewing Reviewing 1,” the focus is on experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice. For “Reviewing Reviewing 2,” the conversation shifts to cybersystemic perspectives and identifiable moments of serendipity. Make sure you’re clear on what each session aims to achieve.

2. Develop Learning Outcomes: You’ve already outlined learning outcomes for both sessions, such as identifying traits of good and bad reviews and describing what a good reviewer does. Use these outcomes to guide the structure of your sessions and the questions you plan to ask. Ensure each part of the session contributes to these outcomes.

3. Create an Interview Guide: Based on the learning outcomes and the areas of focus for each session, draft an interview guide with questions that will lead the conversation towards those outcomes. Incorporate questions that encourage speakers to share examples, experiences, and practical advice. Refer to the ideas from “Smart Connections” and the questions you’ve formulated based on your notes for inspiration.

4. Engage with the Community: Since you’ve promoted the event across various platforms (r/academia, Obsidian discord, etc.), consider reaching out again to these communities with a teaser of what to expect from the sessions. This could be a question that will be discussed or a brief introduction to one of your speakers. Engaging with your audience beforehand can increase interest and attendance.

5. Prep Your Speakers: Share your interview guide with your speakers ahead of time so they can prepare their thoughts. Consider having a pre-session call to go over the format, discuss any technical requirements, and answer any questions they might have. This is also a good time to clarify how interactive you want the sessions to be with the audience.

6. Technical and Logistical Preparations: Ensure you have all the technical aspects sorted out, such as the video conferencing platform, recording permissions, and any presentation materials. Test your setup before the day of the event to avoid any technical difficulties.

7. Plan for Audience Engagement: Decide how you want to involve the audience. Will there be a Q&A section? How will questions be submitted and selected? If you’re using a platform like Zoom, familiarize yourself with features like breakout rooms or polls if you plan to use them to increase engagement.

8. Review and Reflect: Finally, review the materials and notes you’ve gathered, including the links to systemic design conversations and the Eventbrite registration pages. Reflect on how each element of your preparation aligns with the goals of the sessions and make any necessary adjustments.

By following these steps, you’ll be well-prepared to host meaningful and impactful conversations on “reviewing reviewing” with the SDA community.

Sources: Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections △ Host RSDx for RSD11 ∵ Support the SDA 20240417

user: I’ve only written learning outcomes for the first session. Can you write learning outcomes for the second?

user: I’ve only written learning outcomes for the first session. Can you write learning outcomes for the second?

ai: Based on your notes and the detailed context provided for the “Reviewing Reviewing” sessions, particularly the second session which focuses on “Cybersystemic perspectives and identifiable moments of serendipity” featuring conversations with Ray Ison, Houda Khayame, and Wendy Ross, here are proposed learning outcomes for the second session:

Participants will be able to:

1. Understand the concept of cybersystemic thinking and its relevance to the reviewing process.
2. Identify moments of serendipity in the peer review process and how they can contribute to innovative outcomes.
3. Analyze the role of a reviewer from a cybersystemic perspective, recognizing the interconnectedness of elements within a research ecosystem.
4. Apply cybersystemic principles to enhance the quality of peer reviews, fostering a more holistic and integrative approach to evaluating research.
5. Reflect on their own reviewing practices and identify opportunities for incorporating cybersystemic insights to improve feedback and support for authors.
6. Discuss the challenges and opportunities of adopting a cybersystemic approach in peer review, including the potential for transformative learning experiences for both reviewers and authors.

These outcomes aim to equip participants with a deeper understanding of how cybersystemic thinking can enrich the peer review process, encouraging a more reflective, interconnected, and serendipitous approach to evaluating and contributing to scholarly work.

Sources: Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections Submit Six Elements of Experiential Learning to the 2024 Teaching and Learning Conference S4 Season of Rising

user: Those are pretty good. Now develop an interview guide for those learning outcomes. What questions will lead to discussion that helps the audience achieve those outcomes?

user: Those are pretty good. Now develop an interview guide for those learning outcomes. What questions will lead to discussion that helps the audience achieve those outcomes?

ai: Based on your notes, particularly those from which outline the learning outcomes for sessions on reviewing reviewing, and incorporating insights from your other notes on methodology, feedback, and systemic design, here are some questions that could be included in an interview guide to lead discussions towards achieving the outlined learning outcomes related to “Cybersystemic perspectives and identifiable moments of serendipity”:

1. Understanding Cybersystemic Thinking in Reviewing:

   • Can you describe how cybersystemic thinking influences your approach to peer review?
   • How does this perspective help in identifying the broader implications of the research under review?

2. Identifying Serendipitous Moments:

   • Could you share an instance where a serendipitous moment during a review process led to significant insights or changes in the manuscript?
   • How can reviewers be more open to or facilitate serendipitous discoveries in their review process?

3. Analyzing the Reviewer’s Role from a Cybersystemic Perspective:

   • From a cybersystemic viewpoint, what do you believe is the role of a reviewer in the broader academic ecosystem?
   • How does this role change when considering interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research?

4. Applying Cybersystemic Principles to Enhance Peer Review Quality:

   • What cybersystemic principles do you think are most important for improving the quality of peer reviews?
   • Can you provide examples of how these principles can be practically applied in a review?

5. Reflecting on Personal Reviewing Practices:

   • How has your understanding of cybersystemic thinking affected your own reviewing practices?
   • In what ways have you modified your approach to reviewing to incorporate more holistic or systemic considerations?

6. Discussing Challenges and Opportunities of a Cybersystemic Approach:

   • What challenges have you encountered in applying a cybersystemic approach to peer review?
   • Conversely, what opportunities do you see for enhancing the peer review process through cybersystemic thinking?

7. Enhancing Constructive Feedback with Cybersystemic Insights:

   • How can cybersystemic insights aid in providing more constructive and holistic feedback to authors?
   • Can you share strategies or tips for conveying complex, systemic feedback in a supportive and constructive manner?

8. Fostering Collaboration and Serendipity in Peer Review:

   • In what ways can the peer review process be structured to foster more collaboration and serendipitous discoveries among reviewers and between reviewers and authors?

These questions aim to delve into the nuances of applying cybersystemic thinking to the peer review process, encouraging a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of research, the review process, and the broader academic and societal context. They are designed to stimulate discussion that not only addresses the practical aspects of reviewing but also encourages reflection on the philosophical and systemic dimensions of this critical academic practice.

Sources: Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections What is the role of information systems in serendipity? A scoping literature review How should the systemic design scholarship system work - Provocateurs interview guide

user: Okay, great. Now do the same thing for the learning outcomes I’d identified for the first session.

user: Okay, great. Now do the same thing for the learning outcomes I’d identified for the first session.

ai: Based on your notes, particularly from the detailed learning outcomes identified for the first session on “reviewing reviewing,” which emphasizes experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice, here is a suggested interview guide. This guide aims to explore these themes deeply, drawing from the insights and experiences of the session participants.

• Briefly introduce the purpose of the interview and the significance of discussing reviewing practices within the SDA community.

1. Background and Experience:

   • Can you share your journey into the world of reviewing? What were some key milestones or turning points in developing your reviewing expertise?

2. Learning to Review:

   • Reflecting on your early experiences as a reviewer, what resources or practices helped you hone your skills? Were there any particular challenges you faced, and how did you overcome them?

3. Evolving Practices:

   • How have your reviewing practices evolved over time? Are there any specific experiences or pieces of feedback that prompted changes in how you approach reviews?

4. Understanding Norms:

   • In your view, what are the established norms of practice in reviewing within your field or community? How do these norms support or hinder the review process?

5. Challenging Norms:

   • Have you encountered situations where the typical norms of reviewing were not adequate or appropriate? How did you navigate these situations?

6. Promoting Best Practices:

   • What steps can the community take to promote best practices in reviewing? Are there any initiatives or resources you believe could make a significant difference?

7. Examples of Excellence:

   • Can you share an example of a review you received or observed that exemplified good practice? What made it stand out?

8. Learning from Others:

   • How important is it for reviewers to be exposed to examples of high-quality reviews? What are some effective ways to facilitate this exposure?

9. Mentorship and Guidance:

   • Discuss the role of mentorship and guidance in developing good reviewing practices. Do you have any recommendations for how experienced reviewers can support those new to the process?

10. Self-Reflection:

    • How do you assess your own performance as a reviewer? Are there any tools or strategies you use to reflect on and improve your reviewing skills?

11. Feedback on Reviews:

    • Feedback is often focused on the authors, but how valuable is feedback to reviewers themselves? Have you had experiences where feedback on your review significantly impacted your approach?

12. Future of Reviewing:

    • Looking forward, how do you see the practices and norms of reviewing evolving? Are there any changes you hope to see in the review process?

• Wrap up the interview by thanking the participant for their insights and discussing any next steps or follow-up actions.

This guide is designed to elicit detailed responses that shed light on the intricacies of reviewing as a practice, focusing on the personal experiences, challenges, and insights of seasoned reviewers. It aims to contribute to a broader understanding of reviewing reviewing within the SDA community, fostering a dialogue that can lead to enhanced reviewing practices.

Sources: Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections How should the systemic design scholarship system work - Provocateurs interview guide △ Operationalize the Experiential Learning Framework

user: Those are interesting but don’t address the learning outcomes I had previously identified, which are:

• Identify traits of bad/low-quality reviews
• Identify traits of good/high-quality reviews
• Describe what a good reviewer does
• Describe how to give bad feedback
• Describe how to give constructive feedback

Try again — develop interview questions for those learning outcomes on the theme of “Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice”

user: Those are interesting but don’t address the learning outcomes I had previously identified, which are:

• Identify traits of bad/low-quality reviews
• Identify traits of good/high-quality reviews
• Describe what a good reviewer does
• Describe how to give bad feedback
• Describe how to give constructive feedback

Try again — develop interview questions for those learning outcomes on the theme of “Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice”

ai: Based on your notes, particularly from which outlines the learning outcomes for the sessions on “Reviewing Reviewing,” you can develop interview questions that directly address these outcomes by focusing on the experiences, practices, and insights of the participants. Here are some suggested questions tailored to each learning outcome:

1. Identifying traits of bad/low-quality reviews:

   • Can you recall a time when you received or observed a review that you considered to be of low quality? What specific traits made it ineffective or unhelpful?
   • In your experience, what are the most common mistakes new reviewers make that lead to low-quality feedback?

2. Identifying traits of good/high-quality reviews:

   • Reflecting on your experience, can you describe a review that stood out to you as exceptionally helpful or high quality? What specific characteristics made it effective?
   • From your perspective, what are the key components of a constructive and high-quality review?

3. Describing what a good reviewer does:

   • Beyond providing feedback on the manuscript, how do you believe a good reviewer contributes to the broader academic community and the development of the field?
   • What practices do you follow to ensure that your reviews are both critical and constructive? Can you share any strategies or approaches you use?

4. Describing how to give bad feedback:

   • How do you approach delivering feedback on submissions that you find significantly lacking or flawed? Can you share your process for crafting such feedback?
   • Have you ever had to give particularly harsh feedback? How did you ensure it was received as constructive rather than discouraging?

5. Describing how to give constructive feedback:

   • What are your top tips for ensuring that your feedback is constructive, especially when dealing with major issues in a submission?
   • Can you share an example of a time when your constructive feedback led to significant improvements in a manuscript or helped an author refine their research?

These questions are designed to elicit detailed responses that will not only provide insights into the traits of effective and ineffective reviews but also offer practical advice and strategies for new reviewers. By focusing on specific examples and personal experiences, the interview can uncover actionable insights that align with the learning outcomes of the sessions on “Reviewing Reviewing.”

Sources: Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community How should the systemic design scholarship system work - Provocateurs interview guide What does it look like to design educational assessments for learning with AI? Feedback tasks

user: Excellent. I’ve added a learning outcome: “Reflect on what a healthy scholarship system looks like”. Write interview questions for that one, too.

user: Excellent. I’ve added a learning outcome: “Reflect on what a healthy scholarship system looks like”. Write interview questions for that one, too.

ai: Based on your notes and the detailed preparation for the “reviewing reviewing” sessions, including the development of learning outcomes and the creation of an interview guide, to address the newly added learning outcome “Reflect on what a healthy scholarship system looks like”, the following interview questions could be considered:

1. Exploring Definitions and Values:

   • How would you define a healthy scholarship system within the context of systemic design?
   • What core values do you believe are essential for maintaining the health of the scholarship system?

2. Systemic Challenges and Solutions:

   • Can you identify any systemic challenges that currently hinder the health of the scholarship system?
   • What systemic solutions or improvements would you propose to address these challenges?

3. Role of Diversity and Inclusivity:

   • How does diversity and inclusivity contribute to the health of the scholarship system?
   • What strategies can be employed to enhance diversity and inclusivity within the scholarship community?

4. Impact of Technology and Innovation:

   • What role does technology and innovation play in shaping a healthy scholarship system?
   • Can you provide examples of how technology has positively or negatively impacted the scholarship system?

5. Evaluating Success and Impact:

   • How should success and impact

Sources: Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community How should the systemic design scholarship system work - Provocateurs interview guide Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections △ Revise the paper on the scholars spiral into a workshop ∴ Understanding scholarship systems

user: Okay. Let’s take each session one at a time, now.

To recap, here are the learning outcomes and interview questions we have for session 1 on “Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice”:

1. Identify traits of low-quality reviews:
   • Can you recall a time when you received or observed a review that you considered to be of low quality? What specific traits made it ineffective or unhelpful?
   • In your experience, what are the most common mistakes new reviewers make that lead to low-quality feedback?
2. Identify traits of high-quality reviews:
   • Reflecting on your experience, can you describe a review that stood out to you as exceptionally helpful or high quality? What specific characteristics made it effective?
   • From your perspective, what are the key components of a constructive and high-quality review?
3. Describe what a good reviewer does:
   • Beyond providing feedback on the manuscript, how do you believe a good reviewer contributes to the broader academic community and the development of the field?
   • What practices do you follow to ensure that your reviews are both critical and constructive? Can you share any strategies or approaches you use?
4. Describe how to give bad feedback:
   • How do you approach delivering feedback on submissions that you find significantly lacking or flawed? Can you share your process for crafting such feedback?
   • Have you ever had to give particularly harsh feedback? How did you ensure it was received as constructive rather than discouraging?
5. Describing how to give constructive feedback:
   • What are your top tips for ensuring that your feedback is constructive, especially when dealing with major issues in a submission?
   • Can you share an example of a time when your constructive feedback led to significant improvements in a manuscript or helped an author refine their research?
6. Reflect on what a healthy scholarship system looks like
   • What are the signs or measures of a healthy scholarship system?
   • What should we be doing to work towards that system as researchers, as reviewers, and as editors?

Given that session time is limited and we have four discussants (including myself), we need to cut these down. They are also a bit stiff/formal/stodgy.

Draft a smaller set of interview questions that cuts across these questions and learning outcomes while promoting a more vibrant atmosphere suitable for a “fireside chat”-style interview.

user: Okay. Let’s take each session one at a time, now.

To recap, here are the learning outcomes and interview questions we have for session 1 on “Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice”:

1. Identify traits of low-quality reviews:
   • Can you recall a time when you received or observed a review that you considered to be of low quality? What specific traits made it ineffective or unhelpful?
   • In your experience, what are the most common mistakes new reviewers make that lead to low-quality feedback?
2. Identify traits of high-quality reviews:
   • Reflecting on your experience, can you describe a review that stood out to you as exceptionally helpful or high quality? What specific characteristics made it effective?
   • From your perspective, what are the key components of a constructive and high-quality review?
3. Describe what a good reviewer does:
   • Beyond providing feedback on the manuscript, how do you believe a good reviewer contributes to the broader academic community and the development of the field?
   • What practices do you follow to ensure that your reviews are both critical and constructive? Can you share any strategies or approaches you use?
4. Describe how to give bad feedback:
   • How do you approach delivering feedback on submissions that you find significantly lacking or flawed? Can you share your process for crafting such feedback?
   • Have you ever had to give particularly harsh feedback? How did you ensure it was received as constructive rather than discouraging?
5. Describing how to give constructive feedback:
   • What are your top tips for ensuring that your feedback is constructive, especially when dealing with major issues in a submission?
   • Can you share an example of a time when your constructive feedback led to significant improvements in a manuscript or helped an author refine their research?
6. Reflect on what a healthy scholarship system looks like
   • What are the signs or measures of a healthy scholarship system?
   • What should we be doing to work towards that system as researchers, as reviewers, and as editors?

Given that session time is limited and we have four discussants (including myself), we need to cut these down. They are also a bit stiff/formal/stodgy.

Draft a smaller set of interview questions that cuts across these questions and learning outcomes while promoting a more vibrant atmosphere suitable for a “fireside chat”-style interview.

ai: Based on your notes, particularly from sections #5, #3, #7, #9, #12, #10, #6, and #21, which cover a broad range of topics from the traits of good and bad reviews, the significance and clarity of research, methodology and research design, to managing review workload and maintaining integrity, here is a concise set of vibrant, “fireside chat”-style interview questions. These questions are designed to effectively cover the learning outcomes for a session on “Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice” in reviewing, while also reflecting on what a healthy scholarship system looks like:

1. Experience and Expertise in Reviewing:

   • “Can you share a memorable moment from your reviewing experience where you felt your feedback truly made a difference in the development of a paper or a researcher?”
   • “Reflecting on your journey, how has your approach to reviewing evolved, and what key lessons have you learned that new reviewers might find invaluable?”

2. Norms of Practice:

   • “In your view, what are the most critical norms of practice that uphold the integrity and effectiveness of the peer review process?”
   • “How do you see the role of these norms changing in the face of new challenges in scholarly publishing, such as open access and preprint servers?”

3. Exposure to Good Practice:

   • “Could you describe an instance where observing or participating in a review process led to a significant learning moment for you?”
   • “What practices do you wish were more widespread among reviewers, and how can we encourage their adoption?”

4. Constructive Feedback:

   • “What strategies do you employ to ensure your feedback is both constructive and empowering, especially when dealing with submissions that require significant improvement?”
   • “How do you balance the need for rigorous critique with the goal of encouraging and nurturing emerging scholars?”

5. Evaluating Significance and Clarity:

   • “When faced with a study whose significance or goals are unclear, how do you guide authors towards sharpening their focus and enhancing the impact of their research?”
   • “What advice would you give to reviewers on assessing the significance of interdisciplinary or unconventional studies?”

6. Methodology and Research Design:

   • “What red flags do you look for in a paper’s methodology, and how do you communicate concerns to authors in a way that fosters improvement?”
   • “Can you share an example where a suggestion you made significantly improved a paper’s research design?”

7. The Role of Reviewers Beyond Evaluation:

   • “Beyond assessing the quality of manuscripts, how can reviewers contribute to the broader development of their field and the scholarly community?”
   • “What responsibilities do reviewers have in mentoring new scholars and fostering a culture of constructive feedback?”

8. Managing Review Workload and Integrity:

   • “With the increasing volume of submissions, how do you manage your review workload while ensuring each paper receives the attention it deserves?”
   • “Can you discuss a time when maintaining objectivity and integrity in the review process was particularly challenging, and how you addressed it?”

9. Reflecting on a Healthy Scholarship System:

   • “Considering the evolving landscape of scholarly communication, what does a healthy, robust scholarship system look like to you?”
   • “How can the peer review process adapt to better serve the needs of a diverse and dynamic scholarly community?”

These questions aim to spark engaging, insightful conversations that not only address the practical aspects of reviewing but also encourage reflection on the broader implications for the scholarship system as a whole.

Sources: Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community How should the systemic design scholarship system work - Provocateurs interview guide △ Revise the paper on the scholars spiral into a workshop How should the systemic design scholarship system work - workshop flow

user: That was way too many questions. Try again, writing a maximum of eight questions that cut across these themes.

user: That was way too many questions. Try again, writing a maximum of eight questions that cut across these themes.

ai: Based on your notes and the themes of experience and expertise, norms of practice, exposure to good practice, and reflecting on what a healthy scholarship system looks like, here is a concise set of eight vibrant, “fireside chat”-style interview questions suitable for a session on “Considering experience and expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice” in reviewing:

1. Reflecting on Your Journey: Can you share a pivotal moment in your career that shaped your perspective on the importance of peer review in the scholarship system?

2. Traits of Excellence: From your experience, what are the key traits that distinguish an outstanding review from a mediocre one? How do these traits contribute to the health of the scholarship system?

3. Navigating Challenges: Reviewing can sometimes be a challenging task, especially when dealing with complex or controversial topics. Can you discuss a particularly challenging review you’ve conducted and how you navigated it?

4. Constructive Criticism: Giving constructive feedback is an art. Can you provide examples of how you’ve delivered constructive criticism in a review that led to significant improvements in the work?

5. Evolution of Norms: How have you seen the norms of practice in reviewing evolve over your career? What changes do you believe have been most beneficial for the scholarship system?

6. Learning from Reviews: Can you talk about a time when feedback you received as an author significantly changed your perspective or approach to your work? How did this experience influence your approach to conducting reviews?

7. Fostering New Talent: What advice would you give to early-career researchers and reviewers to help them provide high-quality, constructive reviews? How can they balance critical assessment with encouragement?

8. The Future of Reviewing: Looking towards the future, how do you envision the role and process of reviewing evolving? What practices or innovations do you think could make the peer review process more effective and supportive of a healthy scholarship system?

These questions aim to delve into the experiences, challenges, and insights of seasoned reviewers, offering valuable perspectives to both new and experienced members of the academic community.

Sources: Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections How should the systemic design scholarship system work - Provocateurs interview guide Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community △ Revise the paper on the scholars spiral into a workshop ChatGPT assistant Engaged Scholarship for Systemic Change Coaching

user: Okay, let’s step back for a moment.

Here’s the general session description:

This set of hour-long systemic design conversations about reviewing concentrate 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.

Please write a small set of learning outcomes for that description following the SOLO taxonomy.

user: Okay, let’s step back for a moment.

Here’s the general session description:

This set of hour-long systemic design conversations about reviewing concentrate 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.

Please write a small set of learning outcomes for that description following the SOLO taxonomy.

ai: Based on your notes, the learning outcomes for participants who are new to reviewing or reviewing-curious, structured according to the SOLO taxonomy and considering the emphasis on academic career paths, contribution to research and praxis, and the cultural and institutional norms of academic reviewing, could include:

1. Unistructural Outcome: Participants will be able to identify the basic elements of a high-quality review. This includes recognizing the traits of both good and bad reviews, as highlighted in the conversations with Peter Jones, Ruth Schmidt, and Katelyn Stenger, which focus on experience, expertise, norms of practice, and exposure to good practice.

2. Multistructural Outcome: Participants will gain the ability to describe multiple aspects of the reviewing process, including what constitutes a good reviewer, how to give constructive feedback, and how to approach submissions with significant issues. This outcome builds on the foundational knowledge of identifying review traits by adding the skill of articulating the components of effective feedback and review strategies.

3. Relational Outcome: Participants will be able to relate the principles of good reviewing to broader academic and systemic design contexts. This includes understanding how reviewing contributes to the scholarly system, as discussed in the systemic design conversations about reviewing and the Scholars’ Spiral model. Participants will learn how effective reviewing practices can support the development of the author, the field, and contribute to the systemic impact of scholarly work.

4. Extended Abstract Outcome: Participants will be able to conceptualize and propose improvements to the reviewing process within the systemic design scholarship system. This involves critically assessing the current state of academic reviewing, including its cultural and institutional norms, and envisioning alternative models or practices that could enhance the scholarly impact and innovation in systemic design. Participants will engage in appreciative inquiry-based conversations to discover, dream, and design future directions for scholarship in systemic design, inspired by the discussions on the Scholars’ Spiral and alternative systemic designs for the scholarship system.

These learning outcomes are designed to guide participants from understanding the basic components of a quality review to critically engaging with the systemic design of scholarship and envisioning innovative approaches to reviewing that can enhance the academic field and its practices.

Sources: Host sessions on Reviewing Reviewing with the SDA community Reviewing Reviewing ideas from Smart Connections △ Revise the paper on the scholars spiral into a workshop