Document Feedback - Review and Comment
Step 1 of 4: Comment on Document
How to make a comment?
1. Use this to open a comment box for your chosen Section, Part, Heading or clause.
2. Type your feedback into the comments box and then click "save comment" button located in the lower-right of the comment box.
3. Do not open more than one comment box at the same time.
4. When you have finished making comments proceed to the next stage by clicking on the "Continue to Step 2" button at the very bottom of this page.
Important Information
During the comment process you are connected to a database. Like internet banking, the session that connects you to the database may time-out due to inactivity. If you do not have JavaScript running you will recieve a message to advise you of the length of time before the time-out. If you have JavaScript enabled, the time-out is lengthy and should not cause difficulty, however you should note the following tips to avoid losing your comments or corrupting your entries:
-
DO NOT jump between web pages/applications while logging comments.
-
DO NOT log comments for more than one document at a time. Complete and submit all comments for one document before commenting on another.
-
DO NOT leave your submission half way through. If you need to take a break, submit your current set of comments. The system will email you a copy of your comments so you can identify where you were up to and add to them later.
-
DO NOT exit from the interface until you have completed all three stages of the submission process.
(1) Peer review is an essential component of responsible research practice as it provides critical evaluation of research planning, execution and reporting. La Trobe researchers are encouraged to embrace the benefits of impartial and independent assessment of their research by others working in a similar or related research area, and to participate as a responsible reviewer of other research activities. (2) Peer review makes a valuable contribution to the integrity of research and plays an essential role in credible research evaluation and reporting. La Trobe is committed to ensuring that responsible peer review processes are established and that all researchers have the capacity to engage in peer review as part of their professional obligations to their field. (3) This Procedure outlines the responsibilities of researchers in the peer review process consistent with the standards of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) and the Singapore Statement (2010). (5) La Trobe University is committed to ensuring that: (6) All La Trobe staff and students involved in research are required to respect and apply the requirements for peer review as set out in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018), the Singapore Statement (2010) and those of State and Federal codes. (7) Researchers have a duty to responsibly contribute to the peer review process and refrain from misusing the process to benefit their individual or a third party’s self-interests. (8) Researchers in receipt of peer-reviewed, publically funded projects have an obligation to act as peer reviewers whenever possible. (9) Students involved in research are not to participate in peer review of work produced by their supervisor. (10) La Trobe expects all researchers to participate in, and submit their research for, peer review wherever possible. (11) Researchers in receipt of public funding should be willing to participate in a peer review process. For ARC and NHMRC grants, peer review forms the basis of decision-making in the recommendation of applications for funding. (12) Researchers have a responsibility to ensure that: (13) Peer reviewers will be independent of the research under review. Peer reviewers can include experienced researchers in a general or related research area. (14) Researchers cannot be peer reviewers for a particular research project or proposal if: (15) Peer reviews should be conducted in a timely manner and within the confirmed and negotiated time frame. (16) Where the peer review process has been conducted contrary to this Policy, researchers can exercise the following actions against each peer reviewer: (17) For the purpose of this Policy and Procedure:Peer Review Policy
Section 1 - Background and Purpose
Section 2 - Scope
Top of PageSection 3 - Policy Statement
Section 4 - Procedures
Part A - Peer Review Process
Part B - Responsibility of Researchers
Part C - Peer Reviewers
Part D - Timely Review of Research Outputs
Part E - Peer Review Process Compromised – Actions Available to Researchers
Top of PageSection 5 - Definitions
Top of PageSection 6 - Stakeholders