Social Science Space

Six coping strategies drawn from positive psychology can help us cope with the sting of negative feedback.

In honor of Peer Review Week (September 19-23), the next in SAGE Publishing’s series of ‘how to get published’ webinars […]

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to fix peer review. An astronomic number of ideas to repair peer review followed a tweet about the system.

Ludo Waltman and Jessica Polka make the case for a more contextualized approach to open access publishing and preprinting, and introduce the Publish Your Reviews initiative.

The authors – all journal editors -believe that feedback given in peer review should be rigorous, but will be more readily incorporated if kindly given, to the advancement of science.

For all sorts of reasons, our article “A Design Thinking Approach to Teaching Sustainability” should not have been written. This […]

The aim of peer review for research grants and academic hiring boards is to provide expert independent judgement on the quality of research proposals and candidates. Based on findings from a recent survey, Liv Langfeldt, Dag W. Aksnes and Ingvild Reymert, find metrics continue to play a significant role in shaping these decisions, especially for reviewers who are highly ranked themselves.

Robin Haunschild and Lutz Bornmann discuss their recent findings on how retracted papers were talked about on the social media platform Twitter and how this can be mapped onto the eventual retraction notices of these articles.

As a rap artist and academic, A.D. Carson wondered if he could get his new album “published” through an academic press?

Academic capitalism exhibit a lack of transparency and accountability where it truly matters. Peer review and the ways in which journals often handle peer reviews are one key site of such intransparency and unaccountability.

Peer review is integral to the award of funds for academic research. Lambros Roumbanis argues that randomly awarding research funding via lotteries presents a more rational, efficient and most importantly unbiased means of distributing research funding.

Their paper about the evolution of malaria was in review for what seemed like an eternity. Every month, Susan Perkins and her then-graduate student Spencer Galen would check in with the editors. The problem seemed to be a lack of peer reviewers …