Peer Review

This category contains 341 posts

Think. Check. Submit. (How to Have Trust in Your Publisher.)

Charlie Rapple reports on “Think. Check. Submit.”, a campaign to help researchers learn who they can trust when they are seeking to publish their work. Continue reading

Welcome to Peer Review Week!

Welcome to the first – but hopefully not the last – Peer Review Week: an opportunity to celebrate the fundamental role played by peer review in scholarly communications, and the many diverse efforts to improve and support it. Continue reading

Revisiting: The Editor — A Vital Role We Barely Talk About Anymore

Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2014 post on the importance of editors–how much of what we see as a failure of “peer review” is really a failure of editorial oversight? Continue reading

What Is “Publishing” if Even a Library Can Do It?

Libraries increasingly provide a wide range of publishing activities, but are there some areas where libraries are not active? It appears that libraries are unlikely to play a large role in publishing that is based on end-user demand. Continue reading

Peer Review Week – A Celebration!

Peer review is fundamental to scholarly communications – not just journal articles, but conference papers, grants, promotion and tenure, and more. Four organizations plan to honor it through a Peer Review Week later this month – we hope you’ll join the celebrations! Continue reading

Extreme Bias: How Rejection Clouds The Eyes of Researchers

The publication experience of authors may come down to a single factor: was the manuscript accepted? Continue reading

Deceptive Publishing: Why We Need a Blacklist, and Some Suggestions on How to Do It Right

Predatory publishing is a big and complex problem; so is calling out and shaming deceptive publishers by means of blacklisting. Is that something we should even do, and can it be done fairly, constructively, and helpfully? Yes, and here are some suggestions how. Continue reading

Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Ivan Oransky and Retraction Watch

In this episode, Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oransky talks with podcast host Michael Clarke about the causes, trends, and problems with retractions of scientific research papers. Continue reading

If We don’t Know What Citations Mean, What Does it Mean when We Count Them?

There is no shortage of critique of citation metrics and other efforts to quantify the “impact” of scholarship. Will a report calling for “responsible metrics” help researchers, administrators and funders finally wean themselves? Continue reading

Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: “101 Innovations” and Scientific Workflow

Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer, librarians at Utrecht University, talk with podcast host Stewart Wills about their 101 Innovations project. Continue reading

Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: Talking Publication Ethics

A conversation with COPE’s Charlotte Haug. Continue reading

The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review

Offering researchers credit for performing peer review seems, on the surface, like a good idea. But implementing such a scheme raises some problematic questions. Continue reading

Academia Versus Should Tech Business Needs Trump Scholarly Culture?

Should the fast and loose rules of startup company business models and the spin-oriented language of advertising be given free rein in the scholarly community? Continue reading

Revisiting: On the Likelihood of Academia “Taking Back” Scholarly Publishing

Revisiting Rick Anderson’s 2013 post on what the options for the academy to take control of scholarly publishing, and whether any of those options seems feasible. Continue reading

Should We Retire the Term “Predatory Publishing”?

Those who argue that “predatory” behavior is not only a problem among author-pays OA publishers have a good point. But this raises another question: is the term “predatory” itself really useful in the context of scholarly communication? Continue reading

Thumbs Down for the Freemium Model? Researchers Reject Nature’s Fast Track Peer Review Experiment

Nature conducts an experiment in paid fast track peer review, and the research community responds with concerns over creating an unfair tiered system for publication. Continue reading

Version Control; or, What does it Mean to “Publish?”

The Oxford English Dictionary’s overarching definition of the transitive verb “publish” is “to make public.” An early use, dating to 1382 is “to prepare and issue copies of (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.).” This is probably how most publishers think of the term: public distribution of a text. In usage dating from 1573, … Continue reading

The Ubiquitous Bookstore

There is much discussion now about creating new online bookstores, especially for academic publishers. Some of these discussions, however, are not aligned with overarching trends on the Internet and risk creating something that appears to be out of date the moment it is launched. Continue reading

Ask The Chefs: How Can We Improve the Article Review and Submission Process?

What’s wrong with peer review and article submission processes? What can publishers, authors, and reviewers do to improve the status quo? Continue reading

Guest Post: Karin Wulf on Open Access and Historical Scholarship

As we consider the future of scholarly publishing generally and of open access in particular, we need to keep in mind the deep differences between the humanities and the applied sciences when it comes to both the production and the consumption of scholarship–and the implications of those differences for new dissemination models. Continue reading

Side Dishes by Stewart Wills

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

October 2015
« Sep    

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 19,289 other followers