User Tools

Site Tools


open_peer-review

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

open_peer-review [25-Aug-11 19:54]
sanjay
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 (Ed#2) 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 CIf [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 (Ed#3), 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.1314298441.txt.gz · Last modified: 25-Aug-11 19:54 by sanjay