Peer Review

This category contains 351 posts

Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED — 96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition)

Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do. Continue reading

Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review

Do we need more metrics, or can some questions be answered more easily? Continue reading

The Importance of Academic (History) Writing

Historians can and do play a vital role in the public humanities, but there are vital reasons not just why but how we write for one another, too. Continue reading

PNAS: Tighter Editorial Policy Improves NAS Papers

After years of tightening its submissions policy, papers contributed by NAS members start resembling direct submissions. Continue reading

What Price Progress: The Costs of an Effective Data Publishing Policy

The hidden costs of data availability policies. Continue reading

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

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

February 2016
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829  
SSP_LOGO
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.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 20,317 other followers