Learned Publishing (LP) has achieved a double first with the January issue: this is the first regular issue that we have themed and it focuses on the topic of peer review. This is also the first issue we have published with Wiley. As announced last year, we have made the decision to partner with Wiley to contract-publish LP on behalf of ALPSP starting 2016. So, not only have we an issue crammed with fantastic content, but we also have a snazzy new platform (check out the enhanced HTML). Remember that access is free for all ALPSP and SSP members. SSP members, please click here or log in to the member center on the SSP website to access the full content.
So what content can you expect in this issue? We have articles looking at systems, quality, behaviour and motivations, and to put them into context an excellent overview article from Michael Jubb provides a resource guide to the current landscape. Other articles look at why reviewers decline, how reviewer reports are assessed, how the system is managed, and whether Chinese researchers have a different opinion of the validity of peer reviewed content compared to western researchers.
A preliminary investigation provides food for thought by reporting that the impact of articles published in megajournals operating a “minimal” review system differs little from articles from more selective journals. We have two articles looking at reviewer reward and motivation, and reporting on the recent ORCID reviewer recognition programme. And we also have a couple of provocative opinion pieces questioning the importance and philosophy behind reviewing.
Enjoy!
Pippa Smart
Editor-in-Chief, Learned Publishing
editor@alpsp.org
www.learned-publishing.org
Twitter: @LearnedPublish
Learned Publishing Volume 29 No 1 January 2016 www.learned-publishing.org
All articles are free to all ALPSP and SSP members and to journal subscribers; in addition, editorials, reviews and letters to the Editors, as well as any articles where the author has taken up the OA option, are now free to all.
ALPSP members – please log in at the top right of the ALPSP website home page to access the full content – email info@alpsp.org if you do not have a username and password
SSP members – please click here or log in to the member center on the SSP website to access the full content.
Peer review: An expensive business
By Pippa Smart
Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses
By Michael Willis
Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?
By Bo-Christer Björk and Paul Catani
Peer review: The current landscape and future trends
By Michael Jubb
The JBJS Peer-Review Scoring Scale: A valid, reliable instrument for measuring the quality of peer review reports
By Stephen R. Thompson, Julie Agel and Elena Losina
Peer choice–does reviewer self-selection work?
By James Hartley, John Cowan and Nick Rushby
Chinese researchers, scholarly communication behaviour, and trust
By David Nicholas, Jie Xu, Lifang Xu, Jing Su, and Anthony Watkinson
Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained
By Verity Warne
An update on peer review and research data
By Fiona Murphy
Process for selecting and implementing a manuscript management system: Experiences of a new peer-reviewed journal
By Ruwaida M. Salem, Natalie M. Culbertson and Alison O’Connell
Early adopters of ORCID functionality enabling recognition of peer review: Two brief case studies
By Brooks Hanson, Rebecca Lawrence, Alice Meadows and Laura Paglione
Is peer review still the content industry’s upper house?
By Alison Baverstock
Back to the future: (re)turning from peer review to peer engagement
By Rebecca Kennison
Join the Conversation
You must be logged in to post a comment.