Conference Rubric Development for STEM Librarians’ Publications

References

• Akers, K. G. 2017. Being critical and constructive: A guide to peer reviewing for librarians. Journal of the Medical Library Association 105 (1):1–3. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson, T. 2009. Conference reviewing considered harmful. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 43 (2):108–16. doi:10.1145/1531793.1531815.
   Google Scholar
• Audunson, R. 2004. Is that really so? Some guidelines when evaluating research. In IFLA Conference Proceedings, 1–11. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
   Google Scholar
• Beckers, G. M. A., M. Fossum, and M. Kaefer. 2018. How to review an abstract for a scientific meeting. Journal of Pediatric Urology 14 (1):71–72. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.11.007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernstein, M. 2008. Eastgate systems Inc. Reviewing Conference Papers. Accessed October 13, 2021. https://www.markbernstein.org/elements/Reviewing.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, P. 2017. Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3):347–60. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deveugele, M., and J. Silverman. 2017. Peer-Review for selection of oral presentations for conferences: Are we reliable? Patient Education and Counseling 100 (11):2147–50. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dobele, A. R. 2015. Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process. Higher Education Research & Development 34 (5):853–68. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1011086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engineering Libraries Division. 2022. Conference Information. Engineering Library Division, ASEE. Accessed February 3, 2022. https://sites.asee.org/eld/conference-info/
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, A., K. Willey, L. Jolly, and G. Tibbits. 2012. Peering at the peer review process for conference submissions. In 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, 1–6. Seattle, Washington. doi:10.1109/FIE.2012.6462393.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales, J. 2015. Meet the single point rubric. Cult of Pedagogy. Accessed March 8, 2022. https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/single-point-rubric/
   Google Scholar
• Hayne, A. N., and G. S. McDaniel. 2013. Presentation rubric: Improving faculty professional presentations: Presentation rubric. Nursing Forum 48 (4):289–94. doi:10.1111/nuf.12043.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Howard, M. S., S. E. Abel, and E. A. Madigan. 2021. Communicating expectations: Developing a rubric for peer reviewers. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 52 (2):64–66. doi:10.3928/00220124-20210114-04.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jolly, L., K. Willey, G. Tibbits, and A. Gardner. 2011. Conference, reviews and conversations about improving engineering education. In Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011, 834–40. Madrid, Spain. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/19220
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, J., L. R. Hopson, C. Molins, S. K. Bentley, N. M. Deiorio, S. A. Santen, L. M. Yarris, W. C. Coates, and M. A. Gisondi. 2021. Leveling the field: Development of reliable scoring rubrics for quantitative and qualitative medical education research abstracts. AEM Education and Training 5 (4):e10654. doi:10.1002/aet2.10654.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larkin, T. L. 2014. The student conference: A model of authentic assessment. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP) 4 (2):36–46. doi:10.3991/ijep.v4i2.3445.
   Google Scholar
• Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division. 2019. Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division (LEES) division call for papers 2019. Accessed February 3, 2022. https://sites.asee.org/lees/annual-conference/2019-conference/
   Google Scholar
• Lubienski, S. T. 2020. How to review conference proposals (and Why you should bother). Educational Researcher 49 (1):64–67. doi:10.3102/0013189X19890332.
   Google Scholar
• Newsom, J., C. A. Estrada, D. Panisko, and L. Willett. 2012. Selecting the best clinical vignettes for academic meetings: Should the scoring tool criteria be modified? Journal of General Internal Medicine 27 (2):202–06. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1879-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Orozco, G. S., R. R. Barreras, and R. W. Hicks. 2021. Addressing the gap, advancing the knowledge: Guidance for the abstract reviewer. AORN Journal 114 (4):319–26. doi:10.1002/aorn.13497.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schröter, D. C., C. L. S. Coryn, and B. Montrosse. 2008. Peer review of submissions to the Annual American Evaluation Association conference by the graduate student & New Evaluators Topical Interest Group. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation 5 (9):25–40.
   Google Scholar