Gunning, J G and Fellows, R F (1997) Perspectives on the review of research publications in construction management. In: Stephenson, P (ed.) Proceedings of 13th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1997, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
It seems appropriate in a forum such as ARCOM to consider the impact of the peer review and referencing process on the preparation of research reports for conferences, journals and other publications. Both authors have extensive experience in writing and reviewing. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss their views concerning the production and presentation of various types of research publications. Issues are examined concerning the layout, content, style and presentation of summaries of research findings. The paper sets out some key aspects which influence the decisions of referees on the acceptability of papers and thus, hopefully, will play a part in raising the quality of submissions and the rate of acceptance without the need for major revisions. It examines the functions of title and abstract, as well as the importance of underlying methodological issues. Tips on literature review and referencing are offered, and suggestions are made on the use of language and illustrations.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; management; publications; research; review |
| Index terms: | publication, peer-review, journal, literature review, conference |
| Subjects: | professional development, data analysis and analytics, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here