Paper out: how innovations in peer review remain niche.

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


Clarifying Opaque Peer Review


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?


Paper out: peer review & retractions


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.