Lots of things are wrong with paying for peer review, according to Tim Vines and Alison Mudditt in the recent R2R conference debate
A look at Thieme’s “Select Crowd Review” approach to peer review.
As we say farewell to another Peer Review Week, here are some handy resources created by members of the Organizing Committee that you can use all year round!
How do the concepts and the practices of trust and review function outside of a context specifically associated with scholarship, but still within the scholarly communications ecosystem? An interview with Roger Schonfeld.
Peer Review Week posts continue! Last week we asked the Chefs, and this week we asked the global community: “what would improve trust in peer review?”
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Dawn Durante of the University of Texas Press, looking at trust in peer review from the perspective of economics.
Peer Review Week 2020 continues with a guest post by Bahar Mehmani of Elsevier, who interviewed Professor Jeffrey Unerman about his work on the risks of self-referential peer review.
Chefs Alice Meadows, Jasmine Wallace, and Karin Wulf tackle Peer Review Week 2020’s theme of Trust in Peer Review with this post on trust as both an ethic and a practice
In support of #PeerRevWk20 theme #TrustInPeerReview, we asked the Chefs how trust in peer review could be improved. See what the said and add your thoughts!
Five months to go till the sixth annual Peer Review Week, a global celebration of the critical role peer review plays in scholarly communications. This year’s theme is trust — learn more in this post by Alice Meadows
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?
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?