Peer Review

This category contains 346 posts

Ask The Chefs: How Does The Increased Use of Adjunct Faculty Affect Scholarly Publishing?

How does a differentiation between faculty on separate tracks for research or educational roles will drive change in the reward system? How might it impact scholarly publishing? Continue reading

Is Reviewer Fatigue a Real Thing?

Editors are quick to assume that reviewer fatigue is slowing them down; but one journal found that excessive invitations to review was not cited as a major reason why reviewers declined invitations. Continue reading

Survey: What Do Authors Expect From Peer Review?

Stop thinking of peer review as a concept and start thinking of it as a toolbox. Continue reading

Do Academy Members Publish Better Papers?

When journals provide academy members a VIP submission track, do their papers perform any better? Continue reading

What is an Academic Journal?

We spend much time these days wondering when the academic journal as we know it will cease to exist. Robert Harington discusses the role of the journal in light of a fascinating new venture in the field of mathematics – the overlay journal Discrete Analysis. Continue reading

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

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

November 2015
« Oct    
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 19,704 other followers