{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01504424778761062, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.389830508474576, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Characteristics of Peer Review in a CMC environment

Peer review is one of the processes by which academic journals seek to control the quality of their publications. A number of studies have suggested however that a central assumption behind peer review—that reviewers are capable of consistently evaluating submissions against an abstract standard—is false. Research has shown that interreviewer disagreement is a common feature of peer review, as are biases arising from the perceived age, gender, and status of the author. I analyse inter-reviewer disagreements using the theories of Thomas Kuhn, and suggest that one reason for such disagreements might be the lack of facility within traditional review processes for participants to ‘translate’ their differing points of view amongst each other. The online Journal of Interactive Media in Education offers an alternative model of peer review, in which authors and reviewers communicate within a structured online environment. This study investigates to what extent the JIME peer review process differs from or improves upon more traditional paper-based peer review processes.