Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, Proceedings of the 2012 Construction Research Congress

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Abstract

In an email from August 20, 2011the Chief Editor of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management wrote that the main criteria of an acceptable paper review were timeliness, objectivity, factuality, fairness, thoroughness, and professionalism. A request for clarification about the definitions of fair, objective, and thorough did not receive a response. It provided the latest impetus to get an article on this subject published after having failed multiple times. The paper explores whether the ambiguous and scientifically irrelevant assessment criteria effect the scholarly quality of the journal itself. It further reviews the performance of the journal measured by its impact factor. A discussion of requirements for scholarly work defined by qualified researchers in construction engineering and management follows a brief initial review. The paper proceeds with an evaluation of scholarship in some recently published articles. Finally, the paper offers a framework to serve as a transparent standard for reviewers' assessment of draft papers' scientific rigor. The hypothesis that a lack of consistently high scientific standards applied by its reviewers has a bearing on the quality of a scholarly paper is tested. With support from the literature it will be shown that measures such as fairness, thoroughness, and objectivity have no place in evaluating a submitted paper's scientific quality. © 2012 ASCE.
Original languageEnglish
Pages2052-2059
Number of pages8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Sep 2012
Externally publishedYes
Eventconference -
Duration: 19 Sep 2012 → …

Conference

Conferenceconference
Period19/09/12 → …

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, Proceedings of the 2012 Construction Research Congress'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this