[…] in this crucial, early aspect of career progress.” Beyond writing itself, a central skill in the scholarly communication process is peer review. Publishers and library staff alike will be aware of the phenomenon of peer review training sessions being over-subscribed. There […]
[…] (who is also a chess grandmaster) published their controversial paper in 2010 in the American Economic Review. It was not peer–reviewed. While the paper had been used in numerous venues to drive austerity policy, it wasn’t until April 2013 when […]
What kind of peer review is developing to evaluate long-form digital scholarship? A view from AAUP press editors.
[…] of funding announced for Publons, I wanted to revisit the question of how carefully we need to track and rate peer review activities. Is this added complexity necessary when a simple yes/no checkbox would suffice? Offering career credit to researchers for […]
When there’s a lot at stake, peer review still helps to separate the best information from the rest.
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 […]
Robert Harington discusses the value of preprints, the importance of peer review, research integrity and openness.
Offering researchers credit for performing peer review seems, on the surface, like a good idea. But implementing such a scheme raises some problematic questions.
After wondering at the supposed burden of peer–review, more evidence emerged that it still works well, and is probably less taxing than other alternatives.
The power and identity of Reviewer 3 springs from the shadows to ensnare the unwanted paper. But is it really a powerful spirit? Or just Dad in a mask?
Scholarly publishing is under pressure. Submissions keep rising, integrity threats keep evolving, reviewer capacity hasn’t kept up, and peer review struggles to pace demand. Output and submissions have grown rapidly — ~897,000 more indexed articles in 2022 than in 2016 (≈5.6% […]
Conventional wisdom has well-known researchers getting more and more requests for reviews, leading some to suggest the system is broken and about to implode. Yet, when real-world data are analyzed, some surprises emerge.
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.
When authors are unwilling to peer review and incentives are not enough, is it time to privatize the system?
[…] authors a Book Processing Charge (BPC), which — when handled by a reputable publisher — covers vital services such as peer review, editorial oversight, and wide dissemination. Predatory book publishers, however, often charge similar fees without providing these essential services. They […]