Peer Review

This tag is associated with 129 posts

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

How Much Does It Cost eLife to Publish an Article?

Adding to the discussion of APCs, eLife’s financials suggest that being competitive with some major journals means the journal is expensive to run. Continue reading

Your Question for the Day — What Is “Peer Review”?

A recent “Slate” article shows what can go wrong when we talk about “peer review” as if we all share a common definition about an unchanging phenomenon. Continue reading

Trust But Verify — Identity Fraud and Exploitation of the Trust Economy in Scholarly Publishing

A ruse to self-review and self-recommend papers for publication leads to 60 retractions. Can we find a way to prevent this kind of identity fraud and its consequences? Continue reading

Open Access Publication Gains Acceptance With Authors, Licenses Still Problematic

A recent survey of authors by Taylor and Francis reveals growing acceptance of open access publishing; however, Creative Commons licensing may still pose a problem. Continue reading

This Just In from the 1990s — We’re Doomed, Doomed, Doomed, Sayeth the Editor of VentureBeat

A Silicon Valley journalist has seen open access and deemed it disruptive. He’s 15+ years and scads of evidence behind the times, as we enter the post-disruption era. Continue reading

What Motivates Reviewers? An Experiment in Economics

Shorter deadlines, email reminders, and cash incentives can speed up the peer review process and minimize unintended effects, a recent study suggests. Can it work for other disciplines? Continue reading

How Can We Make the Publishing Process More Sound?

At a time when more research articles are more readily available to more readers globally than ever before, it’s crucial we are confident that those papers meet the highest standards and, that on those occasions where they don’t, there is a sound system in place to revise or retract them. So what can we do to make the publishing process more sound?
Continue reading

Side Dishes by Stewart Wills

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

October 2014
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

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 14,465 other followers