Crowd-sourcing reviews


The Scholarly Kitchen blog has a discussion of a new method that some journals are using to collect reviews of scientific articles.  The system relies on a large number of expert reviewers who are invited to "crowd" review a manuscript and can submit their comments much more rapidly than under the old system.

The comments are also of interest.  Commentators noted the way that this promotes discussion and collegiality; one of them thought it would be worth trying the same method with book reviews.

JStor extends free access


JStor is extending its free access offer through December 31, 2020.  You can find more informaiton below.  Scholars should also check with their local libraries (including public libraries) and learned societies to see if they are offering JSTOR discounts or logins.

Access for Independent Researchers

Re: How to be a good reviewer

A recent article in Pediatrics reports on a study of single- versus double-blinded reviewing. They asked reviewers for their own journal which they preferred, and the results were almost evenly divided -- 51% preferred double-blind, 38% preferred single-blind, and 11% preferred an open reviewing process.

I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall, but here's the citation:

How to be a good reviewer


The H-Net Feeding the Elephant blog on the Book Channel network has a new post by Michael Chibnik entitled "Journal Peer Review: Tips for Being an Effective Reviewer."  It  outlines the duties of a helpful peer review of manuscript articles from the perspective of the editor of a well-regarded scholarly journal.

You can find it at

History blogs, comment


our H-Net sister list H-Civ-War has begun to host a blog series for subscribers.  To view the first entries go to'%20Blog

Meanwhile. over at the Society for the History of Natural History, Ann Sylph has posted some advice on composing blogs:

Subscribe to RSS - Academic communication