Etkili Bir Hakemlik Eğitimi Tasarlamak: Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Erken Kariyer Araştırmacıları İçin Bir İhtiyaç Analizi

Öz

Etkili hakemlik eğitimi programlarının tasarlanması, erken kariyer araştırmacılarının (ECR’lerin) karşılaştıkları zorlukların ve ihtiyaçların derinlemesine anlaşılmasını gerektirir. Bu nitel çalışma, yabancı dil eğitimi alanında hazırlanacak bir hakemlik eğitimi girişiminden önce yürütülen ihtiyaç analizinin geliştirilme sürecini rapor etmektedir. Akademik yayıncılık ve akademik okuryazarlık konularındaki uzmanlıkları nedeniyle seçilen üç dergi editörü ve iki hakemlik uzmanı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel verilerin analizinde ve uzman görüşlerindeki örüntülerin belirlenmesinde Clarke ve Braun’un (2006) önerdiği tematik analiz çerçevesi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular üç ana tema etrafında yapılandırılmıştır: (1) Erken kariyer araştırmacıları hakemlik sürecine ilişkin sınırlı bilgi ve deneyime sahiptir; bu durum özgüven eksikliği ve rehberlik ihtiyacı ile birlikte görülmektedir. (2) Alan uzmanlığı, eleştirel düşünme becerileri ve etik farkındalık, etkili hakemlik için gerekli temel yeterlikler arasında öne çıkmaktadır. (3) Teknoloji ve dijital araçların etkin biçimde kullanıldığı, etik ilkelerle desteklenen ve pratik içeriklerle zenginleştirilmiş harmanlanmış formatta programlara duyulan acil ihtiyaç söz konusudur. Ayrıca, mentorluk, tanınırlık ve sertifikasyon gibi destekleyici mekanizmaların motivasyonu sürdürmedeki önemi de vurgulanmıştır. Bulgular doğrultusunda, uzman görüşlerini kapsayan, hem nitel hem de nicel boyutları içeren kapsamlı bir ihtiyaç analizi geliştirilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın, bağlamsal ihtiyaçlara dayalı olarak etkili hakemlik becerilerini geliştirmeye odaklanan özel programların tasarlanmasına katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hakemlik eğitimi
• Erken kariyer araştırmacısı
• İhtiyaç analizi
• etik yönergeler

Building Reviewer Competence for Early-Career Researchers in Foreign Language Education: An Expert-Based Needs Analysis

Öz

Designing effective peer review training programs requires a profound understanding of the challenges and needs of early career researchers (ECRs). This qualitative study reports on the development process of a needs analysis conducted before a peer review training initiative was prepared in the field of foreign language education. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three journal editors and two peer review experts who were selected for their expertise in scholarly publishing and academic literacy. The thematic analysis framework proposed by Clarke and Braun (2006) was adopted to analyze qualitative data and identify patterns in expert opinions. The findings were structured around three key themes: 1) Early career researchers (ECRs) have limited knowledge and experience with the peer review process, along with a lack of self-confidence and guidance; 2)the prominence of field expertise, critical thinking skills, and ethical awareness among the core competencies required for effective peer review; 3) the pressing need for programs delivered in a blended format, utilizing technology and digital tools effectively, and supported by ethical principles and practical content. The significance of supportive mechanisms such as mentoring, recognition, and certification in sustaining motivation was also highlighted. In line with the findings, a comprehensive needs analysis incorporating expert opinions was developed, covering both qualitative and quantitative aspects. This research is expected to inform the development of tailored programs that focus on effectively peer reviewing skills based on contextual needs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Peer review training
• ECR
• needs analysis
• ethical guidelines

Kaynakça

1. Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of reviewers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
2. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198-216.
3. Bhakta, D., & Boeren, E. (2016). Training needs of early career researchers in research-intensive universities. International Journal for Researcher Development, 7(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-06-2015-0017
4. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
5. Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B., & Squazzoni, F. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, 10(1), 322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2
6. Buser, J. M., Morris, K. L., Dzomeku, V. M., Endale, T., Smith, Y. R., & August, E. (2023). Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community. BMJ Global Health, 8(4).
7. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
8. Carroll, K. A., East, A., Gao, X., McMullen, J. G., & Emery, N. (2025). Early‐Career Publishing and Reviewing: Pitfalls and Perspectives. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, e70023. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.70023

9. Coniam, D. (2012). Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals. System, 40(4), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002
10. COPE Council. (2022). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf
11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
12. El-Guebaly, N., Foster, J., Bahji, A., & Hellman, M. (2023). The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 40(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221092862
13. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.
14. Gonzalez, P., Wilson, G. S., & Purvis, A. J. (2022). Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(5), 1-12. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol19/iss5/01
15. Huber, J., Inoua, S., Kerschbamer, R., König-Kersting, C., Palan, S., & Smith, V. L. (2022). Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(41), e2205779119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205779119
16. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez‐Bravo, B., Boukacem‐Zeghmouri, C., ... & Świgon, M. (2020). Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1283 Kenny, E., Griffiths, H., Seager, A., Lucini, B., Nithiarasu, P., Kelleher, R., & Morgans, C. (2024). Supporting Early-Career Researchers Value and recognition as a catalyst for success. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 11(3), 266-283. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v11i3.1564.
17. Kumar, A., & Puranik, M. P. (2024). Nurturing Peer Review Proficiency in the Curriculum for Early Career Medical Researchers: Fostering Academic Connectivity. Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry, 22(3), 223-226. DOI: 10.4103/jiaphd.jiaphd_183_24
18. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, 289-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
19. Mansoor, H. J. S. (2021). The use of flipped classroom method to enhance students’ engagement. In 2021 Sustainable Leadership and Academic Excellence (SLAE) Conference (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SLAE54202.2021.9788082
20. Marsden, E., Morgan‐Short, K., Trofimovich, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Introducing registered reports at language learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning, 68(2), 309-320.
21. McDowell, G. S., Knutsen, J. D., Graham, J. M., Oelker, S. K., & Lijek, R. S. (2019). Co-reviewing and early career researcher training: Outcomes and certification. eLife, 8, e48425. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48425
22. McNair, R., Le Phuong, H. A., Cseri, L., & Szekely, G. (2019). Peer Review of Manuscripts: A Valuable yet Neglected Educational Tool for Early‐Career Researchers. Education Research International, 2019(1), 1359362. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1359362
23. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Mohammadi, V., Amini Farsani, M., & Nazmi, R. (2023). Peer reviewing in applied linguistics: Reviewers’ perceptions. Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.22080/iselt.2021.21088.1010
25. Mooney-Somers, J., & Olsen, A. (2017). Ethical review and qualitative research competence: Guidance for reviewers and applicants. Research Ethics, 13(3-4), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116677636
26. Mulligan, A., Akerman, R., Granier, B., Tamber, P. S., & Pöschl, U. (2008). Quality, certification and peer review. Information Services and Use, 28(3-4), 197-214. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2008-0582
27. Muñoz-Ballester, C., & Robel, S. (2021). Transparency and training in peer review: Discussing the contributions of early-career researchers to the review process. Communications Biology, 4, 1115. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02646-5
28. Nicholas, D., Rodríguez‐Bravo, B., Abrizah, A., Herman, E., Revez, J., Świgoń, M., ... & Watkinson, A. (2025). Early Career Researchers on all Aspects of Peer Review: A Deep Dive Into the Data. Learned Publishing, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2002
29. Publons. (2018). Global State of Peer Review 2018. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State- f-Peer-Review-2018.pdf
30. Reinhart, M., & Schendzielorz, C. (2024). Peer-review procedures as practice, decision, and governance—The road to theories of peer review. Science and Public Policy, 51(3), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad089
31. Rodríguez‐Bravo, B., Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., & Świgoń, M. (2017). Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111
32. Ryan, M. (2012). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.694104
33. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
34. Silver, R. E., Lin, E., & Sun, B. (2023). Applied linguistics journal editor perspectives: Research ethics and academic publishing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100069.
35. Sikora, L. (2024). Barriers and Facilitators Facing Early Career Researchers and Librarians in Health Professions When Conducting Systematic and Scoping Reviews: A Mixed Methods Study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
36. Souder, L. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110109
37. Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
38. Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., & Berg, D. R. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
39. Weinbaum, C., Landree, E., Blumenthal, M. S., Piquado, T., & Gutierrez, C. (2019). Ethics in scientific research: An examination of ethical principles and emerging topics. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2912
40. Willis, J. V., Cobey, K. D., Ramos, J., Chow, R., Ng, J. Y., Alayche, M., & Moher, D. (2022). Online training in manuscript peer review: a systematic review. medRxiv, 2022-09. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.02.22279345
41. Willis, J. V., Cobey, K. D., Ramos, J., Chow, R., Ng, J. Y., Alayche, M., & Moher, D. (2023). Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 161, 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.023
42. Yaw, K., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., & Kytö, M. (2023). Research ethics in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56(4), 478-494.