Peer Review

This category contains 380 posts

Are Journals Lacking for Reviewers?

There is sufficient supply of reviewers to meet demand, a new paper suggests. It’s just not evenly distributed. Continue reading

Institutional Conservatism in Scholarly Communications: Thoughts from UKSG’s One-day Conference

A recent UKSG conference explored what researchers need from scholarly communications, and whether the provisions of publishers, libraries and others are keeping up. Once again, the biggest frustration is rooted not in publisher / library services but in institutional structures for recognition. Continue reading

How’s That “Abundance” Thing Working Out For You?

The age of information abundance may have fundamental flaws — barriers to entry that create false equivalence; dissemination tools that conflate fake information with responsible sources; self-reinforcing loops of conspiracy and paranoia; and social fragmentation that makes societal disruption more likely. What can be done? Here are a few ideas. Continue reading

Should You “Revise and Resubmit”?

With everyone in a rush to get work published quickly, authors are sometimes torn on what to do when major revisions are requested. The post examines the pros and cons of seeing the process through, or cutting bait mid way. Continue reading

Can An Algorithm Outperform Science Editors?

Artificial intelligence outperformed human editors in selecting high-impact papers, a Canadian software company claims. Really? Then show me the paper! Continue reading

Love That Dirty Water — Are We Headed Toward a “Clean Science Act”?

With greater awareness of the foibles and failings of scientific publishing, weaker self-regulation systems, and a trend toward governmental regulation of funding, is external regulation of the scientific journals system now inevitable? Continue reading

Innovation, Growth and the Art of Balance

Robert Harington references our current altered state in politics as a tool to reflect on the need to invoke balance in publishing innovation, and growth. Continue reading

Caught in the Middle — Can Publishers Resolve Contradictory Expectations?

A session at ALPSP shines a light on why publishers are caught in an impossible situation — satisfying customers who demand different things at different times, and who are not aligned around the ultimate benefit they all seek to deliver. Continue reading

#RecognizeReview

Learn how and why different organizations are recognizing the work of their reviewers in this video to celebrate the theme of Peer Review Week 2016 — #RecognizeReview. Continue reading

Annotations as Peer Review: An Interview with Maryann Martone of Hypothes.is

Today’s contribution to Peer Review Week 2016 is an interview with Maryann Martone of Hypothes.is, which examines the important — but often overlooked — role of annotation in peer review. Continue reading

Peer Review in the Humanities and Social Sciences: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It?

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. Continue reading

Guest Post: Publons’ Tom Culley — Are We Doing Enough for Editors?  

In the second post in our series to celebrate Peer Review Week 2016, guest author Tom Culley of Publons looks at the critical role played by editors in the peer review process and asks how we can better recognize it. Continue reading

Is More Recognition the Key to Peer Review Success?

As we celebrate Peer Review Week, this post summarizes some of the reviewer preferences along with ways to boost recognition for peer review activities. #PeerRevWk16 Continue reading

Ask The Chefs: What Is The Future Of Peer Review?

Looking forward to Peer Review Week, we asked the Chefs “What is the future of peer review?” #PeerRevWk16 Continue reading

Hollywood Takes on Peer Review

This summer’s blockbuster movie “Ghostbusters” is, amazingly, about academic peer review and the quality of scholarly publishing. Is it possible that the specialized world of scholarly communications now has mass appeal? Continue reading

When Bad Science Wins, or “I’ll See It When I Believe It”

Observational studies claiming an open access citation advantage just keep coming, despite problems in reproducibility and a lack of adequate controls. Are we in for a similar literature on the subject of the impact of social media on readership and citation? Continue reading

Wellcome Money — Involvement with F1000 Opens Door on Sketchy Peer Review, COIs, and Spending Decisions

With a new partnership with F1000, Wellcome embraces sketchy peer review standards, deep conflicts of interest, and financial support of a private, commercial enterprise. Worse, the entire thing seems redundant, avoidable, and unnecessary. Continue reading

Peer Review Week 2016 #RecognizeReview

Peer Review Week is back! After a successful first year, planning for Peer Review Week 2016 is in full swing. This post will give you an outline of the week focusing on Recognition for Review. Continue reading

What If Academic and Scholarly Publishers Paid Research Authors?

It’s a question that has lurked around the edges of our campfire for a while — what if publishers paid authors of research papers? Quickly, it becomes clear why this is very unlikely to happen — for financial, ethical, and practical reasons. Continue reading

The Open Scholarship Initiative: Talking a Good Game, But Can We Deliver?

A look back at the recent Open Scholarship Initiative conference, from several Scholarly Kitchen “Chefs” who attended. Continue reading

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

December 2016
S M T W T F S
« Nov    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
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.