nnovationsInnovations in Science Teacher EducationThe Practitioner Journal of the Association for Science Teacher Education

It is a scenario that has played out many times in many different ways over the last year or two. A phone call from a science supervisor in a surrounding county. An email from a principal. A discussion with a department chair while observing a student teacher. A former student sending a text message. An increasingly familiar question is often asked of us. Do you have any science education majors who will be graduating soon? Our answer has increasingly been that we do not have many science education students graduating and certainly not enough to fill all of the vacancies indicated by the number of requests we receive.

We know we are not alone and our institution is not the only one experiencing an enrollment decline in teacher education programs. Recent data shows enrollments in teacher education programs across the nation dropped from 691,000 to 451,000, a 35% reduction between 2009 and 2014 (Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016). Also, the number of both bachelor’s and master’s degrees awarded in education has declined while the number in all fields has increased (Will, 2018). Moreover, only 2% of aspiring teachers are science education majors (Will, 2018).

The purpose of this editorial is not to explore the reasons for the decline in teacher education programs or to share our thoughts on what can be done to recruit and retain science education majors. Rather, we know many of you are working towards the same goal and many of you have made advances in your efforts. Whether these advances have come from individual efforts, departmental efforts, or university-wide efforts we know that many of our colleagues are engaged in fruitful work. Some of that work has been funded by internal or external sources and some of that work has not.

The times are changing and for many reasons the number of students attracted to science education majors is declining across the nation. To address this decline, innovative strategies and programs are needed that are aligned to the current political, economic, technological, and social climate. More than ever before, your colleagues may be interested in hearing the work that you have been doing to address declining enrollment.

We are writing this editorial to request that those working to attract more students to science teacher education programs consider sharing your innovative work and lessons learned along the way. Innovations in Science Teacher Education provides an outlet for compiling strategies for recruiting and retaining science education majors across disciplines. Some science disciplines have a more developed history of successfully recruiting and retaining majors, most notably physics education. The PhysTEC program, funded by NSF, has a very successful history of increasing the number of physics teachers and have reported on their successes (Sandifer & Brewe, 2015). Many of the successes of the PhysTEC program can be implemented with other science disciplines, but those outside of physics education research circles may not be familiar with this work. Innovations is a practitioner journal for science educators and an appropriate place to publish your work directed towards addressing the declining enrollment in science-specific teacher education programs at the PK-12 grade levels.

Science teacher educators cannot successfully address declining enrollment in our programs individually or within our institutions. We need to share strategies with one another to slow or reverse declining enrollment numbers. Our graduates often stay local, but often cross state lines to begin their science teaching careers in other states. Thus, the global nature of this issue can better be addressed when science teacher educators work together to help one another grow and strengthen teacher education programs. We believe the Innovations journal can serve as a central depository for sharing information on successful programs that have adapted in innovative ways to address the science teacher shortage. While we have yet to publish a special issue, there may be no topic that is worthier of a dedicated issue than manuscripts that address the issue of declining science teacher education candidates. Please consider submitting a manuscript that describes the work you have done to address this issue.

References

Sandifer, C. & Brewe, E. (2015). Recruiting and educating future physics teachers: Case studies and effective practices. College Park, MD: American Physical Society.

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto. CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Will, M. (2018). Enrollment is down at teacher colleges. So they’re trying to change. Education Week, 38(1), 6. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/08/09/enrollment-is-down-at-teacher-colleges-so.html

Happy New Year! Reflecting on our current political “climate” over the past couple of years, we believe that it is timely to reaffirm the importance of the ASTE’s Position Statement on Environmental and Sustainability Education (https://theaste.org/aste-position-statement-on-environmental-and-sustainability-education/). The ASTE strongly supports the inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education as a way to instill environmental literacy and sustainability in our nation’s preK-16 students. Environmental and sustainability education in science teacher education is critical because informed decisions regarding the future of our planet depend upon an environmentally literate citizenry. Accordingly, the ASTE has made the following declaration:

• ASTE urges science teacher educators to prepare teachers that have understandings, skills, and attitudes necessary to be environmentally literate.
• Environmental education provides interdisciplinary, multicultural, and multiple viewpoints to promote awareness and understandings of a global environment.
• Environmental education provides a balance between environmental, economic, ecological, and social perspectives to sustain future needs.
• Environmental education provides an opportunity to foster learning through nonformal and formal learning centers such as aquariums, museums, nature centers, zoos, and government or community agencies.
• Appropriate use of technologies should be used to enhance environmental experiences and understandings.
• Science teacher education should emphasize content, pedagogy, and instructional planning that promotes environmental literacy, an important component of scientific literacy.
• Science teacher educators can foster inquiry by taking students outside and encouraging them to ask questions and explore their local environment.
• Environmental education involves becoming an active participant in local communities. In this way, science teacher educators can provide opportunities for teachers to develop personal connections through ownership and empowerment. Some examples of environmental community projects that promote sustainability include recycling, planting native plants, open space planning, and green building.

In light of the ASTE’s declarations, the Innovations journal is continuously in need of fresh new perspectives on innovative environmental and sustainability science teacher education and professional development. The Innovations journal provides a place for science teacher educators to share detailed descriptions of how their environmental and sustainability science teacher education programs or professional development programming is conducted. Innovative environmental and sustainability science teacher activities are also essential for science teacher educators and classroom teachers, as both attempt to improve science teaching and learning. Thus, we encourage science teacher educators, scientists, science coordinators and supervisors, and informal science educators who prepare and provide professional development for teachers of science at all grade levels to share their innovative ideas with our international science education community through the Innovations journal.

Innovations is the official peer-reviewed online practitioner journal of the ASTE that serves as a forum for disseminating effective instructional practices that are innovative and inspirational. So, take some time right now to reflect back on the innovative aspects of your environmental and sustainability programs for science teachers. Do you have an innovative idea to share with your colleagues? Consider sharing your ideas and lessons learned with colleagues by submitting a manuscript describing your outstanding work with preservice and inservice science teachers!

Also, be sure to check out our website to learn more about publishing in Innovations in Science Teacher Education by using the following link: https://innovations.theaste.org. Please be sure to review the instructions for authors section prior to submitting to ensure that your manuscript adheres to format guidelines and addresses each criterion. We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and want to thank everyone who is, and will be, participating in the submission and review of manuscripts. We hope that you have an amazing 2019!

If you have any questions regarding the Innovations journal, please contact Rommel Miranda (Rmiranda@towson.edu) or Ron Hermann (Rhermann@towson.edu).

At about the same time that we began our doctoral programs, Ron’s cousin-in-law, Matt, began an apprenticeship to become a blacksmith that was nearly equivalent in duration to our program. For sure, there were a lot of similarities between the two programs and some differences as well. We worked closely with our major professor and began the long and arduous process of going from consumers of knowledge to producers of knowledge. It took us several years under the watchful eye of our mentor to learn how to effectively conduct research and to communicate that research to our peers via scholarly journals and conference presentations. Likewise, Matt worked alongside a master blacksmith named Alphonsus and traveled to work with several other blacksmiths to learn additional details of the trade. After completing the lengthy apprenticeship, Matt started his own company where he creates refined artistry in architectural metalwork such as, railings, furniture, and gates in addition to sculptures found at topiaries, businesses and community parks. Matt is a master craftsman and he has a full toolbox, at least figuratively, as most of his tools are large pieces of equipment. Over the years he has come to learn about many different types of tools, but more importantly, how to effectively use those tools. While many people will be able to understand the purpose of those tools, and maybe even the mechanics behind how they operate them at some level, it takes a master craftsman like Matt, with years of training and experience to use those tools to turn a raw piece of metal into an intricate, sophisticated piece of art.

Educators often talk about preparing teachers to have many tools in their toolbox, and it is important to do so. Over the course of a preservice science teacher education program students likely learn about many tools applicable to the classroom. Some tools teachers learn to use may include the 5E learning cycle, the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning framework, scoring rubrics, interactive assessment technologies, and templates for backward lesson planning (Wiggens & McTighe, 1998). Some tools are common across education disciplines, and some are specific to science education. Some tools are more conceptual and others are more tangible. Some tools are for instructional purposes, others for evaluative purposes, and still others for classroom management purposes. But, make no mistake, teachers are exposed to a lot of tools that can be placed in their toolbox. Science teacher educators are, in part, responsible for introducing teachers to classroom tools.

Science teacher educators also work diligently to help students not only learn about the tools, but how to effectively implement the tools in the science classroom. Those working with inservice teachers do much the same in professional development environments, informal settings, or in graduate programs. As practitioners, science teacher educators often have the opportunity to use the tools we share with science teachers. In many cases, science teacher educators have learned about tools from preservice and inservice teachers. Some tools are more easily mastered than others and some require extensive time commitments to master.

We strive to help teachers not only know about the tools, but how to use those tools. One major difference between our doctoral program and Matt’s apprenticeship regarding training is the general lack of one-on-one instruction and interactions preservice and inservice teachers receive. Often, we rely on mentor teachers to provide that one-on-one training that we receive. Moreover, the length of the one-on-one training for preservice teachers is often limited to one or two semesters instead of multiple years. So, it is even more critical that the time we spend with preservice and inservice teachers truly prepares them to use the tools of the teaching trade. We must help them become master craftsmen of the tools we present to them.

Practitioner journals like Innovations, are an ideal place to share classroom tools. However, an explanation of the tool and how it is used is not enough. Practitioners need to know more about the experiences that can be provided to help science teachers learn about the tool and how to master the use of the tool. But, what does mastery look like? Returning to our master craftsman, Matt, the outcome of his mastery of many tools is evident in the metalwork he fabricates. One can simply look at the meticulous detail, solid construction, flawless welds, and artistic design to know that the craftsman has mastered the tools of the trade. The elements of effective teaching are less easily agreed upon, but many can identify effective instruction when they see it. Arguably, one element of effective teaching is the appropriate utilization of a broad array of tools to engage students and move their thinking forward. Innovations is a place to describe how this can best be done with the tools at hand. In addition to learning about new or innovative tools, Innovations readers are interested in reading about how science teacher educators help other people come to master the tools of teaching. One of the most common issues with manuscripts submitted to Innovations is that reviewers request additional details regarding what the author(s) do in their classrooms and other suggestions for implementation. Describing the tool used is not enough. Innovations readers are also interested in how to prepare teachers to effectively use the tool and look to authors for detailed descriptions, advice, and suggestions for how to do so.

Science teacher educators do need to remain judicious with respect to the manner in which tools are introduced to preservice and inservice teachers. The time required for Matt to learn the tools of the blacksmith trade took longer than most preservice science teacher preparation programs. Thus, science teacher educators are left with additional questions and seek the guidance of other practitioners to develop their courses and programs of study. How many different tools can preservice science teachers effectively learn how to use during a teacher education program? Which tools are most worth introducing to preservice teachers and which are more appropriate for inservice teachers? What are the best practices for science teacher educators to help facilitate the use of these tools by novice teachers? Are there tools that inservice teachers are using, but are less familiar to science teacher educators?

Innovations serves as a forum to share tools, describe how to train others to use those tools, and consider which tools are most worth introducing to science teachers and at which stages of their teaching experiences. Just as we look forward to receiving manuscripts that address these issues, we know that Innovations reviewers and readers do too! Please join us in this discussion by submitting proposals and sharing your thoughts on articles published in Innovations on the journal Facebook page.

*Authors’ Note: Here the term craftsman is used rather than the gender-neutral term craftsperson, or including both craftsman and craftswoman, primarily for readability as the subject of the topic is male and alternating between terms can be cumbersome and diminish readability. The Meriam-Webster dictionary implies the term craftsman is gender-neutral by providing as definitions: (1) a worker who practices a trade or handicraft, and (2) one who creates or performs with skill or dexterity especially in the manual arts and we use it in the spirit of those definitions. We hope our inclusion of the term craftsman does not offend readers. Photos courtesy of Harris Metalwork Studio.

References

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Praxis can be an elusive concept for both preservice and inservice teachers alike. When we ask our preservice teacher candidates about praxis, they often respond to us by saying that it is a series of tests that they need to pass in order to get into our teacher education program, and to obtain state licensure to teach. When we ask our inservice teachers about praxis, many express having learned about abstract theories that are far removed from their teaching practice. However, praxis is much more than simply passing a series of tests and the perception that there is a tension between theory and practice should definitely not be the norm. Praxis is at the very heart of what we do as science educators and should encompass every aspect of our professional practice. As such, we often try to develop and facilitate innovative approaches to bridge the theory-practice gap for both our preservice and inservice science teachers.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines praxis as the practical application of a theory (praxis, n.d.). This notion of praxis and its use in education has been linked and discussed in the writings of Paulo Freire. Freire (1970) defined praxis as “reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (p.36). However, Carr and Kemmis (1986) further described praxis as not simply action based on reflection, but as risky because “it requires that a person make a wise and prudent practical judgment about how to act” (p.190). Quinlan (2012) further viewed praxis as the process of taking action in practice, while acting within a theoretical framework of thought. He explained that theoretical models we learn, and the skills we acquire as educators, are inextricably entwined. As a result, they influence each other, and in effect, become a part of your identity as an educator.

Since science education research is constantly changing, practitioners are continuously in need of fresh new perspectives. For this reason, the Innovations journal seeks manuscripts that are based on a firm foundation of scholarly work in science education and provide concrete ideas and strategies that enhance and inform science educators’ practices in their own setting, context and with their unique student population. Such manuscripts can include detailed descriptions of innovative praxis (research into practice) strategies, wherein authors identify a specific body or piece of research and show how they are implementing it into their practice as a science teacher educator. Thus, we encourage science teacher educators, scientists, science coordinators and supervisors, and informal science educators who prepare and provide professional development for teachers of science at all grade levels to share their outstanding innovative praxis ideas and strategies with our international science education community through the Innovations journal.

Please be sure to check out our website to learn more about publishing in Innovations in Science Teacher Education by using the following link: http://innovations.theaste.org. Also, please be sure to review the instructions for authors section prior to submitting to ensure that your manuscript adheres to format guidelines and addresses each criterion. We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and want to thank everyone who is, and will be, participating in the submission and review of manuscripts!

If you have any questions regarding the Innovations journal, please contact Rommel Miranda (Rmiranda@towson.edu) or Ron Hermann (Rhermann@towson.edu).

References

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.

praxis. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved on June 23, 2017, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

Quinlan, O. Praxis: Bringing theory and practice to teaching. Learning, Digital, Education. Retrieved on June 23, 2017, from http://www.oliverquinlan.com/blog/2012/10/23/praxis-bringing-theory-and-practice-to-teaching/

The peer review process is often viewed as a hallmark of many academic disciplines. However, the history of peer review may be shorter than once thought with the idea that referees should be responsible for the quality of literature not emerging until the 20^th century (Baldwin, 2017; Smith, 2006). Despite the wide-spread use of peer review in the current era of academic publishing, the peer review process remains the subject of frequent conversation and is by no means widely considered to be devoid of flaws (Baldwin, 2017). One reason for the ongoing conversation about peer review is the possibility of reviewers altering the work of authors, or so-called “Design by Committee” (Ziman, 1980). Manuscripts are often accepted under the condition that authors satisfactorily address the concerns raised by anonymous reviewers. Thus, the revisions are highly susceptible to coercion to conform to the preferences of the reviewers (Bradley, 1982). Inevitably, the name of the author(s) is present on the published article regardless of the significant changes resulting from reviewer comments. Although the article may have undergone major revisions at the request of reviewers, the author(s) are responsible for what is, and is not, included in the published article and reviewers remain anonymous despite the often large role they play in bringing a manuscript to publication. Indeed, the work of peer reviewers often does not count toward tenure and promotion in meaningful ways which may result in little incentive to write careful, detailed reports (Baldwin, 2017). While much has been written on this topic, much of that literature relates to peer review as it applies to research funding and publication of research reports. Practitioner journals also rely on peer review, although in somewhat unique ways.

While the peer review process may differ for conferences, publications, and grants, across publication types, the process may vary as well. Practitioner journals are the place where practitioners can share what they do with other practitioners. Innovations in Science Teacher Education is a place for science educators to share a description of their work preparing preservice science teachers and providing professional development for inservice science teachers. Both research and practitioner manuscripts are likely initially screened by editors to determine if the manuscript is suitable for the specified mission of the journal and adheres to stylistic guidelines. Manuscripts that address the mission of the journal and adhere to submission guidelines are sent out for double blinded peer review.

In considering the extent to which peer review works, Smith (2006) posited that it depends on what the peer review is for that determines whether it works. While there are some similarities between the review process for research and practitioner manuscripts, the hallmark of practitioner articles is that they provide information on the practice of preparing others to perform a specified task. In regard to Innovations, the peer review process works if the information in the articles is of interest to readers such that they can replicate all, or parts of, the described science teacher preparation activities or programs in their unique context. Thus, the reviewer of practitioner articles has two main criteria in addition to several minor additional criteria. The first major criteria is to evaluate the extent to which the manuscript is of broad interest to other practitioners. Simply put, for Innovations a central question is the extent to which the manuscript offers a unique or novel approach to preparing science teachers. The second criteria is the extent to which the manuscript contains specific details that will enable practitioners to replicate the work of the author(s). Once the manuscript is deemed to be innovative and of broad interest to science educators, the work of the reviewer centers on helping the author(s) more clearly communicate their practice to others. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript without having been present during the reported activities and are well situated to contemplate what information is required to ensure journal readers receive all the information needed to envision replicating the work in their own unique contexts.

The work that is reported in manuscripts is described as it was conducted by the author(s). Reviewers may have ideas for how to change that work, but the fact remains that the authors are reporting what they did, not what they hope to do in the future. Thus, reviewers should not ask authors to change what they did unless the work is deemed to not be innovative, and, therefore, not publishable in the current form. Reviewers may then provide insight into ways to modify instruction to make it more innovative or effective and authors would need to implement that work in their setting prior to rewriting the manuscript.

While authors are not required to revise each instance of reviewer feedback, doing so in order to provide readers with more detailed information is at the heart of the peer review process for practitioner journals. Those comments and suggestions that go beyond the scope of improving readability may not be addressed by authors who instead may choose to explain to editors why the comment or suggestion is not addressed. It should come as little surprise that authors who revise and resubmit manuscripts ultimately develop manuscripts that provide more insightful details and ultimately are accepted for publication. This is an iterative process, though, and any manuscript may be subject to multiple rounds of peer review. Knowing that the purpose of this process is to improve the manuscript and provide a published article that is more meaningful to readers should provide a powerful incentive for authors and reviewers to strive to work together to develop an article that authors and reviewers can be proud of and readers can utilize in their own practice.

References

Baldwin, M. (2017). In referees we trust? Physics Today, 70(2), 44-46.

Bradley, J. V. (1982). Editorial overkill. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19(5), 271-274.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182.

Ziman, J. (1980). What is science? In E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger & A. D. Kline (Eds.), Introductory readings in the philosophy of science. Buffalo, New York; Prometheus Books.

As inaugural editors of the Innovations in Science Teacher Education journal, the most frequent occurring issue we see regarding online manuscript submissions is incomplete manuscript blinding. Consequently, this slows down the peer-review process since the manuscript must be returned to the primary author for revision before it can be sent to reviewers. Additionally, we commonly receive documents with tracked changes. Track changes can be helpful in the review process by providing authors with direct comments, suggestions, and edits. Likewise, authors can track the revisions made in response to reviewer feedback. However, the track changes feature often reveals the identity of both authors and reviewers, which must also be omitted. Thus, to help inform potential authors and reviewers, we provide the following guidelines to ensure that a manuscript is completely blinded and ready for anonymous review:

Grant-funded Programs

The manuscript should not include references to grant-funding sources. Additionally, the manuscript should not include the title (or acronym) of a grant-funded program or the grant number.

Institutional Names

The manuscript should not include the institutional name of the author(s).

Title Page, Running Headers, Footnotes, Figures and Tables

The manuscript should not include any title page, running headers, footnotes, figures, or tables that contain author identifying information.

Acknowledgements

The manuscript should not include any acknowledgements. Acknowledgements can be added to the manuscript after it is formally accepted for publication in the journal.

Self-Citations

If you refer to your work, or the work of your co-authors within the text of the manuscript, please replace all author identifying information with: (Author citation, Year). For entry of your work in a references list, all bibliographic information (e.g. title, journal name, proceedings, volume, pages, location, publishers, etc.) must be omitted and replaced with only the words “Author Citation” followed by the date of the publication. Please note that the author citation in the references list should be in alphabetical order under author, and not where the first author’s last name would appear alphabetically. Here are some examples:

Citation in Text: (Author citation, 2016)

Citation in References List: Author citation. 2016.

Revisions with Tracked Changes

If you are submitting a manuscript revision with tracked changes online, please be sure to completely blind your edits and comments. The following link from Microsoft provides step-by-step directions for blinding your Word document using the track changes feature: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Change-the-author-name-for-review-comments-cdd4b8ac-fbca-438d-a5b5-a99fb1c750e3

Removing Hidden Data and Personal Information by Inspecting Documents

Because hidden information can reveal author or reviewer identifying information, please be sure to completely remove all hidden data and personal information in your Word documents before you submit your manuscript online by using the following steps:

Word 2007

Click the Microsoft Office Button. Point to Prepare, and then click “Inspect Document.” Make sure that “Document Properties and Personal Information” is checked. Click the “Inspect” button. Click the “Remove All” button. Close. Save the document.

Word 2010

File/Info/Check for Issues/Inspect Document. Click the “Inspect Document” button. To the right of “Document Properties and Personal Information” click the “Remove All” button. Close. Save the document.

Word 2013/2016

File/Info/Inspect Document. Click the “Inspect Document” button. Make sure that “Document Properties and Personal Information” is checked. Click the “Inspect” button. Click the “Remove All” button to the right of “Document Properties and Personal Information.” Close. Save the document.

Additionally, the following support document from Microsoft helps to ensure author and reviewer anonymity when submitting a new or revised online manuscript by describing how the “Document Inspector” feature in Word can help you find and remove hidden data and personal information in your document: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-by-inspecting-documents-356b7b5d-77af-44fe-a07f-9aa4d085966f#__toc312143397

To ensure the anonymity of authors and reviewers, manuscripts and reviews of manuscripts should be fully blinded. By doing so, both parties can engage in an open and honest dialogue aimed at producing an engaging and informative article for Innovations readers. Double blind reviews are a powerful way to reduce bias in publications and protect the integrity of the literature (Vaux, 2011). Gender, familiarity and country of origin have been shown to affect reviewer behavior (Link, 1998; Wenneras & Wold, 1997). For these reasons the greater scientific community largely favors double blinded review (Mainguy, Motamedi & Mietchen, 2005; Regehr & Bordage, 2006; Stenrud & Brooks, 2005). Double blind reviews have also been shown to increase the representation of first-authored papers by females (Budden, Tregenza, Aarssen, Koricheva, Leimu, & Lortie, 2008). Though blinding a manuscript and the reviews of that manuscript require additional time and create logistical issues for editors, we believe the benefits far outweigh the costs. Please help us to facilitate the efficient review of manuscripts by fully and completely blinding manuscripts and reviews.

References

Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L.W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C.J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 4-6.

Change the author name for review comments. Retrieved from https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Change-the-author-name-for-review-comments-cdd4b8ac-fbca-438d-a5b5-a99fb1c750e3

Link, A.M. (1998). US and non-US submissions – an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280, 246-247.

Mainguy, G., Motamedi, M.R., & Mietchen, D. (2005). Peer review – the newcomers’ perspective. PLoS Biology, 3, 1534-1535.

Regehr, G., & Bordage, G. (2006). To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education, 40, 832-839.

Remove hidden data and personal information by inspecting documents. Retrieved from https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Remove-hidden-data-and-personal-information-by-inspecting-documents-356b7b5d-77af-44fe-a07f-9aa4d085966f?ui=en-US&rs=en-US&ad=US

Stensrud, D.J., & Brooks, H.E. (2005). The future of peer review? Weather and Forecasting, 20, 825-826.

Vaux, D.L. (2011). Double blind review. Learned Publishing, 24(3). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1087/20110303/epdf

Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-343.