So far this week, we have explored aspects of how trust in peer review is fostered and maintained in academic publishing environments. Specifically, we have examined the responsibility of authors to establish trust through honest manuscript submission and of reviewers to further develop that trust by conducting unbiased and quality reviews.
In this post, we’re going to look at how the publisher is ultimately responsible for demonstrating that established trust to an audience of readers.
In this series of posts exploring how trust in peer review is established, maintained, and delivered, we began yesterday by discussing the author’s role in establishing trust through honest research and reporting practices.
Today, we will explore the responsibilities of the reviewers to further develop that trust through unbiased and quality review practices that lead to an ultimate goal of publishing quality work that is accepted and trusted by the readers.
As noted yesterday, this week marks the sixth annual Peer Review Week event with a focus this year on “shining a light on how the peer review process works and why it helps build trust in research” through its theme, Trust in Peer Review.
In keeping with this theme, while focusing on the role that authors have in the establishment of trust in the peer review process, we will spend the next few days exploring how trust in peer review is established, maintained, and delivered. As the original creator of the work, trust starts with the author.
September 21-25 marks the sixth annual Peer Review Week event with a focus this year on “shining a light on how the peer review process works and why it helps build trust in research” through its theme, Trust in Peer Review.
As academic authors, we participate in the peer review process and recognize the importance of peer review on the scholarly publishing process.
For better or worse, there’s no denying that the state of affairs and what we consider “normal” has changed in the year 2020. It has left many in academia wondering what the future of education looks like for students, faculty, and researchers alike. For some, there’s hope of returning to normal again. For others, an acceptance of a new reality ahead. And for others still, an uncertainty in coping with the days as they continue to pass regardless of the ultimate outcome.
Our collection of articles from around the web this week addresses a variety of topics present in academic writing circles right now. From feelings of brokenness to new opportunities in research funding and making your writing practice what you choose through multiple options for publishing and personalizing your revision practice.
In her recent webinar, “An Editor’s View From Journal Article Submission to Publication”, Micki M. Caskey discussed the aspects of a Revise & Resubmit (R&R) decision from a publisher and what authors should do in response to such a decision.
First, she says, “celebrate the decision”. Then, respond to the reviewer feedback.
