While much literature has sprouted on peer review, this is the first book-length, wide-ranging study that utilizes methods and resources of contemporary philosophy. It covers the tension between peer review and the liberal notion that truth emerges when ideas proliferate in the marketplace of ideas; arguments for and against blind review of submissions; the alleged conservatism of peer review; the anomalous nature of book reviewing; the status of non-peer-reviewed publications; and the future of peer review.
This book is the first to provide an in-depth analysis of the peer review process in scholarly publishing. Author Weller offers a systematic review of published studies of editorial peer review in the following broad categories: general studies of rejection rates, studies of editors, studies of authors, and studies of reviewers. The book concludes with an examination of new models of editorial peer review intended to enhance the scientific communication process as it moves from a print to an electronic environment.
This book examines reports that are written by reviewers of submissions to a peer-reviewed journal. This includes a thorough study of the reports from the perspectives of context, content and genre, as well as from the point of view of pragmatics and politeness. The author examines the use of evaluative language, and the roles reviewers assume as they make their evaluations. He also explores how reviewers learn to write these reports. He then discusses the results of these analyses from the point of view of reviewer training, making suggestions for further research in the area of editorial peer review. The demystification of this occluded genre will be of benefit to doctoral students and early career academics not yet familiar with the peer review process, as well as those working in the broader areas of English for Specific Purposes and English for Academic Purposes, discourse analysis and writing for publication.
A practical introduction to peer reviews. It covers different methods of peer review, from the formal method of inspection to other less formal methods, and addresses the cultural and practical aspects of both. It presents the reader with a flexible set of approaches that they can use to meet their quality improvement goals. Whether they are performing inspection or other less formal methods of peer review, software development professionals should be able to use this text as a guide to learn from the experience of others and conduct more effective reviews.
J. Matthias Starck comprehensively guides the reader in this essential through all steps of writing an expert review for a scientific journal. It is built on a succinct analysis how science works, how science is communicated and how science is published. It provides a critical guide how to write good, informative and fair peer reviews. The author presents a critical discussion of different peer review procedures and their alternatives, explains ethical guidelines as well as the dark sides of scientific publishing. So this essential helps the reader to perform better in the existing system and to contribute to its further development and improvement.
Peer Review in Nursing: Principles for a Successful Practice is the first nursing publication that approaches the definition and implementation strategies for peer review within an organizational setting. Using a professional model, with shared governance as a framework, the authors discuss the difference between manger initiated staff performance evaluation of the past and the true peer review aspects of professional practice for the future. This text follows in line with the Magnet program requiremet “that nurses at all levels use self appraisal performance review and peer review, including annual goal settings, for the assurance of competence and professional development” page 30 of the 2008 Magnet manual. This unique text teaches nurses the skills they need to demonstrate organizational processes, structures, and outcomes that help insure accountability, competence and autonomy.
Humans tend to judge each other, often spontaneously and effortlessly, but also formally and deliberately. The author argues that this process of peer evaluation, or peer review, developed as a result of natural selection and offers adaptive benefits to individuals and communities. However, the peer review process is also stochastic, is based on assumptions, and relies on surrogate measures of success. As a result, particular instances of peer review may be non-adaptive or maladaptive. Another limitation of peer review is that it is useless in the face of novelty. Although peer review, in a broad sense, is critical to the success of human societies, the meaning of peer review is often overly simplified and misunderstood, its results overvalued, and its outcomes misinterpreted - causing much turmoil and frustration. The individuals who participate in a peer review process, especially those rejected by peers, as well as organizations that utilize peer review for decision making, will benefit from the insights proposed in this book.
Ite(tm)s not easy getting published, but everyone has to do it. Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals presents an insidere(tm)s perspective on the secret business of academic publishing, making explicit many of the dilemmas and struggles faced by all writers, but rarely discussed. Its unique approach is theorised and practical. It offers a set of moves for writing a journal article that is structured and doable but also attends to the identity issues that manifest on the page and in the politics of academic life. The book comprehensively assists anyone concerned about getting published; whether they are early in their career or moving from a practice base into higher education, or more experien...