From: "Hinchliffe, Lisa W" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:37:08 +0000
I really appreciate Joe reminding us of this. On Monday I gave a
workshop on "The Path to Publication" an we spent more time
de-mystifying the editorial review/management/decisions processes
(based on my experience as a journal editor) than peer review. Who is
asked to review? How the feedback from the reviews is used? Etc.
Editors can over-rule the input of peer reviewers, direct authors to
follow some feedback and not others, discard a review for being
sexist/racist/etc. Most of the larger publishers also use plagiarism
checkers as well. There are layers of review processes and peer review
is an important one - but just one.
Lisa
--
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive,
Urbana, Illinois 61801
[log in to unmask], 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)
________________________________________
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:06:52 -0400
Experts on peer review will have much to say about this, but I wish to
repeat a point that I have made on this list before: peer review is
only one of the various editorial processes of the publishing process.
Some publications use peer review and nothing more; some ask reviewers
not to comment on originality or importance (how you could do that and
not know the results, I do not know); some use peer review as a useful
supplement to in-house editorial procedures. No doubt there are other
variants as well. What is unfortunate about the discussion about peer
review is that many seem to believe that there is one way to do it and
that the other parts of an editorial program do not exist or are
irrelevant.
Joe Esposito
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:58 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:55:01 -0400
>
> Any reactions to the underlying premise (that knowing results
> increases publication bias)?
>
> How big a pilot would be needed to test the premise?
>
> "Results-free peer review is getting its day in court, thanks to BMC
> Psychology, an open-access journal that is launching the first-ever
> randomized controlled trial of the process. Results-free peer review
> puts manuscripts before reviewers without divulging results or
> discussion sections until the end of the process. In theory, this
> alteration to traditional peer review decreases publication bias by
> forcing reviewers to focus solely on methodology and approach to an
> experimental question."
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47081/title/Reviewing-Results-Free-Manuscripts/
|
