Peer Review Resources

Below is a list of resources for peer review meant to supplement the posts and discussions taking place on Feeding the Elephant. Readers, please help us grow this list by joining the Feeding the Elephant discussions or Tweeting us using the hashtag #FeedingTheElephant.

Introductions to Peer Review

  • "Your Question for the Day - What Is 'Peer Review?" by Kurt Anderson, The Scholarly Kitchen, July 24, 2014
    • Peer review is not any one thing, but instead depends on the goals and intent of the journal and its editors. Different purposes will require different standards of peer review, and Anderson lists a series of "variables" that can define different forms of peer review.
       
  • "How to Be a Good Peer Reviewer" by Jasmine Wallace, The Scholarly Kitchen, September 17, 2019  
    • Helpful tips on how to be a good peer reviewer.

 

Professional Standards

  • "Best Practices for Peer Review," Association of University Presses
    • A statement of best practices for editors in managing peer review - from identifying reviewers, to working with authors to respond to reviews.
       
  • Guidelines for best practices in scholarly publishingThe Committee on Public Ethics
    • COPE is a membership organization that provides advice to editors and publishers on publication ethics and
      how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. The Guidelines section of their website (linked above) contains some valuable sets of guidelines for editors, peer reviewers, and authors.
       
  • Statement on Peer Review for Historical Research (2005), American Historical Association
    • This is the AHA's statement in support of peer review and opposition to political interference in the peer review process. The statement gives a clear definition of peer review for historical research: "Peer review means that a manuscript or research proposal will be read and evaluated by other scholars with expertise in the time period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author deals."
       
  • Information for PublishersDirectory of Open Access Journals
    • The Information for Publishers contains some useful nuts and bolts of what needs to be included in a journal's site (aims and scope, editorial board, instructions for authors, description of the quality control system, open access statement, plagiarism policy, and licensing terms), as well as the site's organization (unique url per article, direct links to articles, archiving and preservation issues, etc.).
       
  • "What to Expect During Peer Review,"  by Taylor & Francis Author Services
    • Flow-chart that concisely illustrates the steps involved in one press's peer review process.

 

Diversity & Inclusion

 

Transparency

  • "Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing," Directory of Open Access Journals 
    • The DOJ states that each piece of research must be clearly marked as peer reviewed or not and that peer reviewers should be experts in field - and not part of the journal's editorial staff -  as well as, that the process and any related policies should be clearly described on the journal's website along with the journal's governing body and editorial team's names and contact information.
       
  • "Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals," by Jelte M. Wicherts, PLoS ONE 11(1), 2006.
    • This is a scholarly article that proposes that transparency in the peer review process is an indicator of quality in peer review, and then suggests a tool for enabling different stakeholders to assess the level of transparency in a given peer review process.

 

Open Review

  • "Kathleen Fitzpatrick on the virtues of Open Peer Review," by Sara Benson, Illinois Library, Scholarly Communication and Publishing Podcast
    • This is a podcast that is dedicated to discussing important copyright matters. The host of this pocast is the copyright librarian from the University of Illinois, Sara Benson, who converses with Kathleen Fitzpatrick on the virtuers of Open Peer Review.  
       
  • "Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy," by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Media Commons Press 
    • "Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, forthcoming from NYU Press. Copyright (c) 2009 New York University. This text may be distributed in part or in whole on condition that (1) distributed text is not sold, whether or not such sale is "for profit" and (2) distributed text bears this notice in full. Except as permitted by law, all other uses are prohibited without written permission of the publisher." 
       
  • "The open review of Generous Thinkingby Kathleen Fitzpatrick 
    • A draft manuscript of Generous Thinking: The Univeristy of the Public Good, the revised version of which was published by Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press in February 2019. 
       
  • "Community Review" by Kathleen FItzpatrick, blog post, February 28th,  2019 
    • A discussion on community review.
       
  • "Generous, Generative Peer Review," JHUP Blog 
    • A discussion on peer review as an act of extraordinary generosity.
       
  • Beyond Metrics: Community Authorization and Open Peer Review, Debates in the Digital Humanities, by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, ed. Matthew K. Gold (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2012), Debates in the Digital Humanites 
    • Fitzpatrick discuss peer review and its digital future. 
       
  • "Open Review: A Study of Contexts and Practices," by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation White Paper, December 2012.
    • A study of technologies, practices, and desires for open, online peer-to-peer review in humanities-based scholarly communication.
       
  • "Survey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experiences amongst Editors, Authors and Reviewers," by Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, and Birgit Schmidt
    • Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR.
       
  • "What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review," by Tony Ross-Hellauer
    • “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with numerous overlapping and contradictory definitions. While for some the term refers to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Recognizing the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review."

 

Other Resources

  • Peer Review Week YouTube Channel
  • Political Science Rumors
    • This website show's the self-reporting feature for the reveiw process in the political sceince field.  The Book Channel, along with Feeding the Elephant, does not endorse this website but, we consider it a good example to look at and draw further conversation from.