A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
We’re pleased to congratulate Francesco Barbera, winner of Family Business Review‘s Outstanding Reviewer Award for 2015! Dr. Barbera graciously provided […]
The reference section of an academic work is more complex than you might think. The references not only provide validity […]
The first time you’re asked to write a peer review, it can seem like confirmation that you are no longer an academic poseur but a real member of the club. Then the realization that you’ve never written a peer review sets in. Here are some tips on taking that initial step.
Few peer reviewers are provided with any training or mentoring on how to undertake a review, and generally learn by doing. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to navigate the line between being both critical and supportive.
If the mental picture of peer review turned from it being a chore to it being a career-builder, it’s reasonable to think that all of academe might prosper. An interview with a co-founder of Publons, a company which aims to do just that.
Peer review is flawed, and a new index proposes a simple way to create transparency and quality control mechanisms. Shane Gero and Maurício Cantor believe that giving citable recognition to reviewers can improve the system by encouraging more participation but also higher quality, constructive input, without the need for a loss of anonymity.
‘I am whoever I want to be,’ insistsCameron Neylon. ‘You don’t get to define my value. The real question is whether the filters you apply are good enough to tell when I have something to say that is useful for you to hear.’
Journal of Macromarketing is now accepting research for the Special Issue on Macro-Social Marketing! This Special Issue will be guest […]
In a conclusion to his two earlier articles on post-publication peer review, Andy Tattersall argues that while new ways to measure scholarly value may not be perfect yet, it’s still high time to start introducing them more widely.
It’s not necessarily the type of peer review that makes an academic article scholarly, argues Christoper Sampson, but the transparency of how the conclusions were reached.
Andy Tattersall continues his discussion of post-publication peer review and provides an overview of the main tools and sites, from publisher platforms to independent forums, offering some kind of comment, discussion or review system for scholarly content.
Andy Tattersall looks at the shortcomings and opportunities of post-publication review online and picks apart the differences between reviewing, discussing and commenting in a scholarly context.
