And Who Will Review the Review(er)s? release_3bn5dbbxy5djjhtujyfzcg5ovy

by Sarah Potvin


NOTE: currently batch computed and may include additional references sources, or be missing recent changes, compared to entity reference list.
Fuzzy reference matching is a work in progress!
Read more about quality, completeness, and caveats in the fatcat guide.
Showing 1 - 25 of 25 references (in 371ms)

via grobid
John Michael Ziman, Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science (Cambridge University Press, 1966), 148. Quoted in Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, "Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System," Minerva 9, no. 1 (January 1971): 66-100, available online at [accessed 8 August 2017].

via grobid
The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature
Lawrence SOUDER
2011   Learned Publishing

via grobid
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
R. Smith
2006   Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178  pmcid:PMC1420798  pmid:16574968 

via grobid
Mario Biagioli, "From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review," Emergences 12, no. 1 (2002): 11-45. doi:10.1080/104572202200000343 p. 11.

via grobid
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies
Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin, Suzanne Brodney Folse, Frank Davidoff, None
2007   The Cochrane library
doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000016.pub3  pmcid:PMC8973931  pmid:17443635 [PDF]

via grobid
Souder, "The Ethics of Scholarly Peer Review." 7. I use the terms "referee" and "reviewer" interchangeably.

via grobid
Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-print Versions
Martin Klein, Peter Broadwell, Sharon E. Farb, Todd Grappone
2016   ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
doi:10.1145/2910896.2910909  dblp:conf/jcdl/KleinBFG16 

via grobid
Lutz Bornmann, "Scientific Peer Review: An Analysis of the Peer Review Process from the Perspective of Sociology of Science Theories," Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 6, no. 2, Article 3 (2008), available online at architecture/vol6/iss2/3 [accessed 8 August 2017].

via grobid
Biagioli, "From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review," 11.

via grobid
Ann C. Weller, Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses (Medford, NJ: Information Today / ASIS&T Monograph Series, 2001): 308-9.

via grobid
Watching the Detectives: Peer Review Past and Present
Korey Jackson

via grobid
Souder, "The Ethics of Scholarly Peer Review," 57. 14. In further commentary on the role of the reviewer, Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K.

via grobid
Merton frame referees and editors as "significant status-judges." They argue that status judges (a category that can be applied in other contexts to teachers and coaches, among others) "… are integral to any system of social control through their evaluation of role-performance and their allocation of rewards for that performance." There are, of course, other status-judges in the schol- arly ecosystem, including authors and readers, whose assessments are formally incorporated via citations, reviews, comments, and even downloads, through scholarly impact metrics that play a growing role in the continued assessment of scholarship;

via grobid
Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K.

via grobid
Merton, "Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System," Minerva 9, no. 1 (January 1971): 66-100, available online at http://www.jstor. org/stable/41827004 [accessed 8 August 2017].

via grobid
Weller, Editorial Peer Review, 322.

via grobid
Editorial peer review: Research, current practices, and implications for librarians
Ann C. Weller
1995   Serials review

via grobid
Stevan Harnad writes that "Editors usually have 'stables' of referees (an apt if unflattering term describing the workhorse duties this population performs gratis for the sake of the system of the whole) for each specialty; in active areas, however, these populations may be saturated-a given workhorse may be in the service of numerous stables." See Stevan Harnad, "Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals," in Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier, eds. Robin P. Peek and Gregory B. Newby (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996): 103-118.

via grobid
Gary Marchionini
2008   ACM Transactions on Information Systems
doi:10.1145/1402256.1402264 [PDF]

via grobid
Bethany Nowviskie, "Cats and Ships," blog (November 2, 2012), available online at [accessed 8 August 2017].

via grobid
20. As 2017 program committee chair Diane Jakacki expressed in her proposal to extend the conference reviewer pool, adding new reviewers "better reflects and represents the dimension of scholar-practitioners in [Digital Humanities] whose work is presented at the conference in all inclusive senses (in terms of language, region, race, ethnicity, culture, labor, identity, as well as the ever-expanding types of scholarship, publication, and expression that are associated with [Digital Humanities]." Diane Jakacki, "Recommendation to extend reviewers pool for DH2017/18." 21. Michèle Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Har- vard University Press, 2009): 102-3.

via grobid
Lamont, 103. Souder reports that "When the peer-review process becomes interdisciplin- ary, some scholars have discovered epistemological conflicts of interest." See Souder, 62. 23. Research firmly situated in a discipline, too, prompts concern for journal editors seeking to identifier reviewers that qualify as peers: as Smith has asked: "But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology?" See Smith, n.p. 24. Several disciplinary associations have issued guidelines for evaluating digital scholarship. See the Modern Language Association's Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media (Committee on Information Technology, 2012) and the American Historical Associa- tion's Guidelines for the Professional Evaluation of Digital Scholarship in History (Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians, June 2015).

via grobid
Susan Schreibman, Laura Mandell, and Stephen Olsen, "Evaluating Digital Scholarship," Profession (2011): 123-135, available online at [accessed 8 August 2017].

via grobid
Perspectives on Peer Review of Data: Framing Standards and Questions
Morten Wendelbo
2017   College and Research Libraries
doi:10.5860/crl.78.3.16585 [PDF]

via grobid
Advancing an Open Ethos with Open Peer Review
Emily Ford
2017   College and Research Libraries
doi:10.5860/crl.78.4.406 [PDF]