The Blogora: The Rhetoric Society of America
peer review
warning: Creating default object from empty value in /usr/local/www/apache22/data/mainsites/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

 

Transforming Peer Review Bibliography


Submitted by syntaxfactory on January 12, 2014 - 9:06pm


Digital Scholarship has released the Transforming Peer
Review Bibliography, which includes selected
English-language articles that are useful in understanding
significant transformations to the peer review process.

http://digital-scholarship.org/tpr/tpr.htm

It is concerned with major changes to peer review, such as
open peer review (excluding just revealing the identity of
traditional peer reviewers) and post-publication review.

Most sources have been published from January 2010 through
December 2012; however, a limited number of earlier key

 

Open Access Journals "Sting"


Submitted by syntaxfactory on October 7, 2013 - 8:20am


See: http://www.npr.org/2013/10/04/229103215/open-access-journals-hit-by-jour...

MONTAGNE: Right, so given the rise of open-access journals, you decided to do an experiment. That is, send in for publication a fake experiment. And, as you describe it, it is a sting operation.

 

Broken Peer Review


Submitted by syntaxfactory on June 1, 2013 - 12:36am


FROM: Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Douglas P. Petersa1* and Stephen J. Cecia2

A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.

 

Peer Review: Should you Google the title of a work you are reviewing?


Submitted by syntaxfactory on February 27, 2013 - 8:33am


(This is a tough one. By googling a piece I was reviewing, I learned that a substantial hunk was already printed in another journal. That seems worthwhile. On the other hand, maybe that's the editor's job, not the reviewer's job. This blog post uses some hyperbole but it asks a basic question about what 'blnd' review is in the age of Google.)

From NewAPPS:
http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/02/self-restraint-in-refereeing.html

Self-restraint in refereeing
by Helen De Cruz
Dear author,

 

Peer Review in CCC


Submitted by syntaxfactory on June 7, 2012 - 9:07pm


If you participate in peer review for a journal, if you will undergo internal or external peer review as part of a forthcoming tenure or promotion process, or if you will serve as a peer reviewer for someone else's tenure and promotion process, you need to read:

CCC 63:4 / june 2012

Symposium on Peer Review
Editor’s note: In this Symposium focused on peer review, Irwin Weiser—drawing
both on history and on his own experience as faculty member, WPA, department
head, and dean—examines the set of practices we associate with the tenure and

 

Joshua Gunn on Graduate Education, Peer Review


Submitted by syntaxfactory on January 27, 2012 - 7:40am


Joshua Gunn on Peer Review and Graduate Education:
http://www.joshiejuice.com/blog/?p=2747

This reminds me of a tension I always face at the undergrad level: On the one hand, we want to offer students a safe space to learn in, and that means the ability to take risks and to fail without consequence. On the other hand, we want them to be professionally composed when they look for jobs. I regularly write syllabi that appear to favor the latter, while I try to behave in the classroom in ways which value the exploratory former. Sometimes, I think I need to rethink that mixed message.

 

On Peer Reviewing RSA Single-Paper Proposals


Submitted by syntaxfactory on September 9, 2011 - 12:28pm


On Peer Reviewing RSA Proposals

Here are my thoughts on the 25 panels I reviewed in a previous year, in broad terms, from my old personal blog: http://practical-criticism.blogspot.com/2009/09/75.html. I repost here at the request of a colleague who used them as a handout. What do you think? Am I right? Am I wrong? How do you review, when called upon to do the task?

I see abstracts as divisible into three categories.

1. Average (about 15 of 25 abstracts).

Para 1. Here is an object/event/text. This object/event/text is really interesting.

 

Critical Lede on Peer Review


Submitted by syntaxfactory on September 1, 2011 - 12:01pm


To explore the peer review process, listen to the Critical Lede:
http://www.thecriticallede.com/The_Critical_Lede/Home.html

Awesome panel with Joshua Gunn, Ted Striphas and Raymie McKerrow, catalyzed by Joshua's post on the Blogora. I'm using Striphas' "Late Age of Print" in my class this semester, so it's double-awesome to hear what he sounds like.

 

The Unbearable Slowness of Peer Review


Submitted by Jim Brown on June 10, 2011 - 11:49am


A couple of weeks ago, during the Computers and Writing Conference in Ann Arbor (as an aside, this was a superbly run conference by the folks in Ann Arbor), I was part of a Town Hall discussion entitled "The Future(s) of Computers and Writing."

 

Intelligent Design and Peer Review


Submitted by syntaxfactory on May 14, 2011 - 11:43pm


Debate Over Intelligent Design Ensnares a Journal
By MARK OPPENHEIMER
Published: May 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14beliefs.html?_r=2&ref=us&pagewant...

"According to one cynical view, academic disputes are so vicious only because the stakes are so low. Yet as the editors of Synthese, a leading philosophy journal, can tell you, what they publish matters: in debates over Christianity, the teaching of evolution, and American politics. This story began in March 2009, when a special issue of Synthese was published online, titled “Evolution and Its Rivals.”..."