More Review Costs More — The Dynamics of a Complex and Varied Expense for Journals
Can peer review systems be run less expensively? Sure, if you eliminate major levels and elements of peer review.
Can peer review systems be run less expensively? Sure, if you eliminate major levels and elements of peer review.
Avi Staiman suggests revamping the peer review process to make it less about tearing down the work of others, and more about helping authors improve their papers.
In today’s post, Alice Meadows talks to Laura Feetham of IOP Publishing about their work to improve peer review quality in the physical sciences through their ongoing peer review excellence program.
In this interview Robert Harington asks Melinda Baldwin to talk about her recent article in Isis, entitled “Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States”, and to provide some more personal views on peer review topics of the moment.
Citations and the metrics around their use are an important part of evaluation and promotion of science and scientists and yet, little attention is paid to them in the peer review process. In this post, Angela Cochran makes a call to critically review reference lists and develop standards around what should and should not be included.
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.
Peer Review Week is an annual global event exploring and celebrating the essential role of peer review. This year’s Peer Review Week theme is “Peer Review and the Future of Publishing.”
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”.
Earlier this year, an American Geophysical Union analysis of peer review in its journals revealed evidence of gender bias, with women being less likely to be invited to review than men despite being more likely to be the first author of an accepted paper. In this interview, Brooks Hanson (Senior Vice President, Publications) and former Data Analyst, Jory Lerback describe the original study and the AGU’s efforts to address this bias.
Policies that formally give peer reviewers the option to officially invite a colleague to collaborate with them improve integrity, transparency, and offers a chance to give fair credit where it is due.
A look at Thieme’s “Select Crowd Review” approach to peer review.
Learn about Elsevier’s recently launched Peer Review Workbench – a new tool for researchers conducting meta research – in this interview with Bahar Mehmani
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
Identity in/ and Peer Review. Previewing some of the themes from this week’s posts for Peer Review Week.
Adam Etkin describes the workings and rationale for scoring papers and journals based on the rigor of peer review they received prior to publication.