What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
The topic of this year’s Peer Review Week is transparency in review – we are joining in the celebrations with a series of posts on this topic and on peer review more generally, beginning with a look at the critical importance of peer review as a mechanism of discernment and scrutiny in a world of “alternative facts”.
A recent book took aim at accelerating administrative demands and the internalized expectation of measurable productivity that have eroded the quality of academic life and work. Is there a corollary for scholarly publishing?
The UK Scholarly Communications License repeats many of the stumbles of the original monolithic and mandatory OA policies. We urge its proponents to slow down and learn from them instead.
Intellectual property is arguably the most important and least clearly understood concept in the world SK readers live and work in. Siva Vaidhyanathan’s new book is an important introduction to IP’s development and discontents.
A newly founded scholarly society brings a fresh perspective and offers some useful lessons for engaging the public and researchers alike.
What makes Annette Gordon-Reed’s recent NYRB essay such a powerful example of the book review genre?
Are scholarly citation practices really the bedrock of engaged democratic governance? Maybe.
Next up in our series of posts celebrating Peer Review Week 2016 is a conversation about peer review in the humanities and social sciences. Chefs Alison Mudditt and Karin Wulf, together with Mary Francis of the University of Michigan Press, discuss the differences and similarities between peer review in HSS and STEM disciplines, and between reviews for books and journals in HSS.
What should publishers know about researchers and their work? Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf follow up a post earlier this year about “Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know about Scholarly Publishing.”