open_peer-review
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
open_peer-review [25-Aug-11 19:52] sanjay additional info |
open_peer-review [09-Oct-11 21:55] (current) sanjay |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| [[http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/|darkmatter Journal]] shifted to accepting submissions subject to external peer review in 2011.((Our practice up until then was of in-house editorial review.)) While we remain committed to publishing 'non-peer review' work (e.g. Commons and Reviews etc.), the decision to adopt external peer review has been extensively discussed amongst the editorial team. | [[http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/|darkmatter Journal]] shifted to accepting submissions subject to external peer review in 2011.((Our practice up until then was of in-house editorial review.)) While we remain committed to publishing 'non-peer review' work (e.g. Commons and Reviews etc.), the decision to adopt external peer review has been extensively discussed amongst the editorial team. | ||
| - | However, the journal aims to eschew traditional (closed) peer-review practices, because essentially they are flawed for failing to promote academic discussion and transparency of knowledge production.((For an excellent critique and discussion of alternative practices of 'open' peer review see [[http://hackthestate.org/2009/07/27/open-process-academic-publishing/|Open-process academic publishing]] by Toni Prug. For an example, see the peer review process of [[http://cspp.oekonux.org/about/peer-review|Critical Studies in Peer Production]] journal)) | + | However, the journal aims to eschew traditional (closed) peer-review practices, because essentially they are flawed for failing to promote academic discussion and transparency of knowledge production.((For an excellent critique and discussion of alternative practices of 'open' peer review see [[http://hackthestate.org/2009/12/16/open-process-academic-publishing-v1-2/|Open-process academic publishing]] by Toni Prug. For an example, see the peer review process of [[http://cspp.oekonux.org/about/peer-review|Critical Studies in Peer Production]] journal)) |
| Our (semi-)open peer review practices involves the following:((We believe peer review is a dynamic process, and reserve the right to develop our open practices over time.)) | Our (semi-)open peer review practices involves the following:((We believe peer review is a dynamic process, and reserve the right to develop our open practices over time.)) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| * Author's have the option to respond to Reviewers' feedback, and Reviewers may wish to discuss further - if available, these comments (and relevant Editorial feedback) can also be published alongside the final version | * Author's have the option to respond to Reviewers' feedback, and Reviewers may wish to discuss further - if available, these comments (and relevant Editorial feedback) can also be published alongside the final version | ||
| - | The diagrame below illustrates the workflow of the Journal's peer review process. To summarize: | + | The diagram below illustrates the workflow of the Journal's peer review process. To summarize: |
| - | * Stage A: After Author submission (Au#1), the initial Editorial decision (Ed#1) takes place: either Acccept for Review or Reject | + | * Stage A: After Author submission (Au#1), the initial Editorial decision (Ed#1) takes place: either Accept for Review or Reject |
| - | * Stage B: Submission are read by up to two external Reviewers (Rf), who provide feedback and indicate a recommendation: [1] Accept; [2] Minor Revisins (Accept); [3] Major Revisions; [4] Reject. The Editors based on Reviewer feedback make a decision based on one of the four choices. | + | * Stage B: Submission are read by up to two external Reviewers (Rf), who provide feedback and indicate a recommendation: [1] Accept; [2] Minor Revisions (Accept); [3] Major Revisions; [4] Reject. |
| - | * Stage C: If [1} the article passes straight through to production for publication; if [2] Author is required to make minor revisions; if [3] Author is required to make major revisions; if [4] the submission is rejected. For [1] - [3] the author has the option to respond to Reviewer feedback, and particular in the situation of [3], the auhtor is encouraged to respond to feedback, (Reviewer's have the option of replying). | + | * Stage C: The Editors taking account of Reviewer feedback make a decision (Ed#2) based on one of the four choices: [1] the article passes straight through to production for publication; [2] Author is required to make minor revisions; [3] Author is required to make major revisions; [4] the submission is rejected. For [1] - [3] the author has the option to respond to Reviewer feedback, and particular in the situation of [3], the author is encouraged to respond to feedback, (and Reviewer's have the option of replying). |
| - | * Stage D: A revised version of article is submitted (Au#2), the Editors check that this is satisfactory, and the article can be passed through to the publication state. | + | * Stage D: A revised version of article is submitted (Au#2), the Editors check that this is satisfactory (Ed#3), and the article can be passed through to the publication state. |
| + | {{:alternativepeerreviewv5.png}} | ||
open_peer-review.1314298357.txt.gz · Last modified: 25-Aug-11 19:52 by sanjay
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
