Perceptions of scholarly standards in technical publication

S. Olbina, K. Grosskopf, T. Johns, M. Scicchitano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations


In fall of 2007, a survey was administered to the membership of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) to evaluate member perspectives on scholarly standards as they relate to the International Journal of Construction Education and Research (Journal). The objectives of this study were to 1) survey respondent understanding of Journal aims and scope, 2) assess respondent interpretations of scholarly work, and 3) survey respondent attitudes on the overall effectiveness of the Journal submission and peer-review process. Of 106 respondents, 74% had previously published or reviewed for the Journal. While 65% of respondents indicated that the aim of the Journal was to publish scholarly works in both construction education and research, respondents were near equally divided on whether non-original research constitutes scholarly work. Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Journal topics (87%), title (93%), and assessment criteria (83%) were appropriate. Ninety-four percent of peer reviewers felt the Journal review process was timely and efficient, compared with 78% of authors. Only 66% of authors felt peer reviewers had the knowledge necessary to effectively review their manuscripts. More than three in four (76%) reviewers stated that they relied more on their own intuition than Journal guidelines when conducting peer reviews. Of all respondents, two-thirds (66%) consider the Journal to be a top tier publication.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)210-226
Number of pages17
JournalInternational Journal of Construction Education and Research
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2008
Externally publishedYes


  • Assessment criteria
  • Construction education
  • Construction research
  • Guidelines
  • Peer review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Building and Construction
  • Education


Dive into the research topics of 'Perceptions of scholarly standards in technical publication'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this