Peer Review

This tag is associated with 163 posts

#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

Seven Things Every Scholarly Publisher Should Know about Researchers

What should publishers know about researchers and their work? Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf follow up a post earlier this year about “Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know about Scholarly Publishing.” 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

The Power of Community — Why Much of Scholarly Publishing Is Unlikely to Change Quickly

Journals as communication vehicles that bind communities of practice are still important and well-regarded, but there are external forces changing them and our industry, along with a rising level of neglect, which may mean a harder future for them than ever. What might we lose? And how does this explain why change is so slow in coming? Continue reading

Sensationalism or Legitimate Worries? Examining the Cottage Industry of Journal Criticism and Science Alarmism

We’re in a thicket of stories proclaiming “science is broken” and that stealing articles isn’t stealing because, publishers. This cottage industry of journal bashing and science trashing has reached a crescendo. What drives it? And what more important stories are being missed in the maelstrom? Continue reading

Ask The Chefs: What Is The Biggest Misconception People Have About Scholarly Publishing?

What is the biggest misconception people have about scholarly publishing? That’s what we asked the Chefs this month. Now we’re asking you. What did we miss? Continue reading

The Downside of Scale for Journal Publishers: Quality Control and Filtration

Scale can be achieved by broadly outsourcing the editorial process. Does this lead to a loss in quality control, and is this acceptable? Continue reading

Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know About Scholarly Publishing

After many and long conversations among colleagues within and beyond the Scholarly Kitchen
about what researchers need to know about scholarly publishing, Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf compiled a list of what we think to be the most urgent issues.
Continue reading

SAGE, Publons and the Love-in Between Publishers and Start-ups

SAGE recently announced that it has taken a minority stake in peer review start-up Publons. Charlie Rapple asks why publishers are investing in workflow tools, and why start-ups are accepting publishers’ money. Continue reading

Guest Post: Kent Anderson UPDATED — 96 Things Publishers Do (2016 Edition)

Kent Anderson returns to update his essential list of just what it is that publishers do. Continue reading

Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review

Do we need more metrics, or can some questions be answered more easily? Continue reading

PNAS: Tighter Editorial Policy Improves NAS Papers

After years of tightening its submissions policy, papers contributed by NAS members start resembling direct submissions. Continue reading

Is Reviewer Fatigue a Real Thing?

Editors are quick to assume that reviewer fatigue is slowing them down; but one journal found that excessive invitations to review was not cited as a major reason why reviewers declined invitations. Continue reading

Survey: What Do Authors Expect From Peer Review?

Stop thinking of peer review as a concept and start thinking of it as a toolbox. Continue reading

Do Academy Members Publish Better Papers?

When journals provide academy members a VIP submission track, do their papers perform any better? Continue reading

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

September 2016
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
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.