Scholarly journal review procedures are full of innovation, yet also relatively conservative: with the exception of plagiarism scanners, fiercely advocated experiments in peer review remain limited to niches in the scientific publication system.
Our paper in Minerva:
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2019). Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Minerva. doi: 10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z
Lees onze reactie: Horbach SPJM & W Halffman (19 Sep 2019) “Wangedrag maskeert problemen wetenschap”, Volkskrant
De wet van Campbell is alweer uit 1973. En toch blijven we afrekenen. Leren we dan niets? Mijn column in Vox.
My latest column in Vox Magazine, the Radboud university newspaper, is about the limits of universities shifting towards industry in light of their public mission (in Dutch).
Our book about environmental expertise and the complications of advising policy and society is out now. Specifically designed as a tool to teach environmental scientists with a natural science background about social science insights. With extensive case examples and practitioner experience. Order here.
What if you would play Chinese whispers with objects instead of words? Explaining what a constructivist finds so fascinating about circulating objects in simple terms, Dutch terms: in my column in Vox.
Research journals often fail to explain their precise editorial policies, including their terms for peer review. Do they use open or blind review? Will articles be subjected to statistics scanners? Will reviewers be selected from a pool, or the open scientific community? Check their webpages and try to find out what precisely will happen with your paper after submission and discover how hard it is.
Hence twenty-two editors, researchers, and publishing professionals have just launched the Declaration on Transparent Editorial policies for Academic Journals. Will you sign it too?
Which peer review procedures are related to more retractions? Causal connections are hard to make, as retractions are both a sign of trouble and a sign that journals are taking action to address trouble. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that some peer review procedures, such as double blind review, seem to involve fewer retractions, even after correction for research field.
Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2018). The ability of different peer review forms to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics, doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2. (online 29 November 2018)
There is a short interview about it on Retraction Watch.
The international responses to the Academic Manifesto, with experiences from 14 countries about how to resist the productivist university, was translated into Spanish. It’s really exciting to see how stories about resistance are shared all over the world, and not just the globalised management-speak of The Wolf.
Halffman, W., & Radder, H. (eds.) (2017), International Responses to the Academic Manifesto: Reports from 14 Countries, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, p. 1-77.(online 13 July 2017). http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-3FV,
Translated into Spanishby Eva Aladro Vico, Respuestas internacionales al manifiesto académico: informes desde 14 países, to appear in: CIC Cuadernos de Información y Comunicación, 2018 vol. 23, 25-103. http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CIYC/article/view/60686
My column about WOinActie on VOX, the Radboud university newspaper (in Dutch).