Peer Review

This tag is associated with 146 posts

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

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

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

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

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 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

Challenges, Connections, Conversations, and Collaboration – Lessons from the May 2015 ORCID-CASRAI Conference

The recent ORCID-CASRAI conference in Barcelona brought together over 150 researchers, research administrators, funders, publishers, vendors, and others working in scholarly communications to discuss research evaluation, with a particular focus on social science and humanities – resulting in some interesting conversations and observations Continue reading

Sexism in Peer Review

When sexist comments make it into a technical review of a research article, journal editors and publishers are wise to take a moment and think about processes for finding, responding to, and eradicating this behavior. 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

Peer Review — Recognition Wanted!

Despite recent criticisms, peer review remains central to scholarly communication – but identifying and maintaining a steady stream of trained and knowledgeable peer reviewers is increasingly challenging. With researchers under more pressure than ever to publish or perish, some journal editors would like to see more support and recognition for peer review from their institutions and funders. Continue reading

Buried in the Matryoshka — Unpacking the “Value Add” of Peer Review

Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared. Continue reading

UPDATED — 82 Things Publishers Do (2014 Edition)

The annual update to the list adds some important items overlooked on prior versions, including design, enforcement of editorial policies, and Board interactions. Continue reading

The Editor — A Vital Role We Barely Talk About Anymore

An alien landing in the scholarly and scientific publishing world today, reading all the opinions about how to make things more efficient and effective, might be forgiven for thinking there are only authors, readers, librarians, and reviewers. After all, those are the roles we mostly talk about these days. We’ve focused so exclusively, and in … Continue reading

Instruction Junction — The Ballooning Lists of Editorial Policies, and the Burdens They Create

Long “Instructions to Authors” filled with ancillary policies and undifferentiated requirements don’t help authors, staff, or editors. As the graveyard for unmade decisions, they’ve only gotten longer and more opaque. Maybe it’s time to clean yours up! 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 19,702 other followers