Revisiting: A Curious Blindness Among Peer Review Initiatives
Revisiting a 2018 post — Overlooking the need for paid Editorial Office staff hobbles many attempts to reform peer review.
Welcome to Peer Review Week!
Welcome to the first – but hopefully not the last – Peer Review Week: an opportunity to celebrate the fundamental role played by peer review in scholarly communications, and the many diverse efforts to improve and support it.
Publishers Invest in Preprints
[…] the journal publishing system, that speed and efficiency might replace what has seemed to many like a cumbersome editorial and peer review process. What started in a small set of originating fields such as high energy physics in 1991 has, in […]
Should You “Revise and Resubmit”?
Image via Nic McPhee. How quickly can you get a paper through peer review? Editors and boards are under tremendous pressure to decrease the time it takes to get a paper from submission to first decision and then to acceptance. Rapid […]
Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review
[…] post to go back and look at The Scholarly Kitchen archives to see how long the conversation over credit for peer review has been going on. The first mention I can find is in this 2009 piece by Phil Davis, looking […]
Revisiting: Turning a Critical Eye on Reference Lists
[…] with the popularity of preprint servers. The question being asked is whether researchers should cite preprints that have not undergone peer review. I am not going to debate that here, but the next leap is whether journals should allow preprints to […]
Guest Post — What’s Wrong with Preprint Citations?
Editor’s Note: With Peer Review Week on the horizon, today we turn to the question of preprints, and how they can best be integrated into the permanent research record. Today’s post is by Sylvia Izzo Hunter (Marketing Manager), Igor Kleshchevich (Senior […]
Study Reports Open Peer Review Attracts Fewer Reviews, Quality Suffers
Open online review has the potential to attract many more eyes to a new piece of research than conventional peer review. In reality, it may do far worse in attracting the eyes you want.
Editing is at the Heart of Scholarly Publishing
[…] program is relatively small with a team of six in the editorial department, aided by outside vendors that help oversee peer review. Over the last 5 years, submissions to the ASCE Journals has increased 41%, providing new challenges in getting papers […]
Turning a Critical Eye on Reference Lists
[…] 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 […]
The Price of Transparency and Peer Review
EMBO opens up the black box of peer–review. Is it worth the cost?
Ouroboros and Peer Review: New Proposals Continue to Chase Their Own Tails
Can social reputation metrics provide a meaningful incentive for researcher participation in peer–review and online commentary?
Guest Post — Pinot Noir, Australia, and 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.
Thumbs Down for the Freemium Model? Researchers Reject Nature’s Fast Track Peer Review Experiment
Nature conducts an experiment in paid fast track peer review, and the research community responds with concerns over creating an unfair tiered system for publication.
Buried in the Matryoshka — Unpacking the "Value Add" of Peer Review
[…] consisting of a number of publishers, when one mentioned that we couldn’t forget to mention the “value-add publishers bring through peer review.” And we moved on, again not pausing to consider just how many layers of activity that includes. Image via […]