Peer Review

This tag is associated with 134 posts

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

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

What Researchers Value from Publishers, Canadian Survey

Peer review, journal reputation, and fast publication were selected by Canadian researchers as the top three factors in deciding where to submit their manuscripts, trumping open access, article-level metrics, and mobile access, a recent study reports. Continue reading

How Do We Address the Continuing Problem of Inadequate and Deceptive Publishing Practices?

Technological trends have enabled experiments in publishing. But now that we’ve seen plenty of experiments, is it time to bring them under control? Continue reading

A Report from Inside Innovation — The Excitement and Uncertainty of the New

In the midst of a couple of major projects, here are some top-of-mind lessons from cultivating and sharing ideas on the long road of innovation. Continue reading

Stick to Your Ribs: The Problems With Calling Comments “Post-Publication Peer-Review”

Revisiting Kent Anderson’s 2012 post about how comments and letters probably shouldn’t be branded as “post-publication peer review”. Continue reading

Frontiers of Intimidation — What a Controversial Paper’s Travails Teach Us About Libel Laws and Publishing

Retracting a paper identifying a link between climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists provokes more conspiracy theories, but it turns out the real impetus for retraction is disappointingly parochial and explicable. Continue reading

Side Dishes by Stewart Wills

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

May 2015
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

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 17,996 other followers