Open peer review hasn’t caught on in the humanities, but it has been part of ongoing experiments in humanities publishing. As the American Historical Review tries open review, what lessons can we take from previous experiments?
Alison Mudditt looks at the recently released TOP Factor from the Center for Open Science, and the bigger picture of shifting the nature of research assessment.
Giving authors a choice between submission fees and APCs has numerous benefits
We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round!
From the Peer Review Congress, what’s changed and what’s about to change? John Sack conducts an interview with the Executive Director and Co-Director of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication.
Continuing our celebration of Peer Review Week 2019, today Alice Meadows interviews Tracey Brown, OBE, Director of Sense about Science, which has been involved in Peer Review Week from the start.
A major factor in determining quality in the peer review process are the reviewers. Without peers providing high-quality reviews, the value-add of the peer review process declines. We started this conversation about what makes a quality peer review within our larger community via Twitter , and came up with a few qualities of good peer reviewers.
And we’re off! Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf kick off the fifth annual Peer Review Week with their thoughts on defining quality in peer review principles and practices.
Quality means different things to different people. How do you think different stakeholders would define quality in peer review?
On the eve of a peer review seminar in Australia, Alex Christopher interviews CSIRO’s Andrew Stammer and Publons’ Tiago Barros on the current state of peer review.
If publishers truly are service providers, then better care should be taken in setting up journal submission guidelines and formats. This guest post by Mriganka Awati shares author feedback on the frustrations with the current submission processes and offers solutions for consideration.
The systems of research and scholarly communication contain a lot of redundancy. This is a good thing.
Michael Eisen’s bold visions for eLife emerge on Twitter. We consider two of his proposed initiatives.
Authors want their papers published quickly while also expecting high-quality reviews. Reviewers want reasonable deadlines. These two groups come from the same communities so why the disconnect? This post by Angela Cochran looks at the numbers and offers suggestions for closing the gap.
The idea of starting over with new peer review management system can make you break out in a cold sweat. Karen Stanwood offers her experience and lessons learned for those considering making a move.