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.
In a recent TAA webinar, “Responding to Reviewers’ Comments”, Mark Pedretti shared three key elements to responding to reviewer comments when presented with the opportunity to revise and resubmit a journal article. In addition to sizing up the editors and writing the response letter, Pedretti shared advice on how to evaluate the reviewer comments to make revision decisions that improve your submission.
Tip #1 – Categorize reviewer comments
This week’s collection of articles from around the web contains a variety of topics important to academic authors and researchers. Many of these topics question our personal actions and beliefs as well as the effect of our actions on others with whom we interact.
We begin with personal issues of adapting core skills and the emotional cost of asking for something in academia. We then explore intercultural research, IRB regulations, the place of animals in academic life, and thanking anonymous reviewers. Finally, we close with some broader issues including research assessment reform, indigenous research methodologies, discrimination, and pure publish agreements.
As you research, write, and collaborate with others this week, pay close attention to your own belief systems and the interactions you have with others in your academic circle. What are you saying about your values in both action and written word? Happy writing!
This week’s collection of articles from around the web includes such topics as the user-centric future of academic research software, crowd-funding research projects, writing the thesis from the middle, evaluative focus groups, citations of friends and reviewers, and roadblocks to better open access models.
We close the collection with a book review of two new guides to academic life and and a new approach to keeping up with academic publications – knowledge mapping.
Robert Louis Stevenson once said, “I kept always two books in my pocket, one to read, one to write in.” As you work this week, may you continue to grow through what you read in a way that lets you produce more from what you write. Happy writing!
In preparation for this week’s Peer Review Week theme of “Quality in Peer Review”, I decided to reach out to several members of our TAA community for insight into the peer review process from either the author’s perspective, reviewer’s perspective, or both.
Regardless of the perspective, I asked for the answer to a single question, “What makes for a quality peer review process?” The insights of eight TAA members are shared below.
Oscar Wilde once said, “It is what you read when you don’t have to that determines what you will be when you can’t help it.” This week’s collection of articles has many things to read that may help you today or be foundation for who you will be in the future.
The list begins with helpful advice on bio-notes, collaboration, managing research notes, reviving “dead” writing projects, and working with data visualization and research. We then explore some insight into grant applications and journal paper review processes before closing with discussions of open access initiatives in textbook and academic authoring environments and the announcement of Eva O. L. Lantsoght’s new book, The A-Z of the PhD Trajectory.
Whatever you read from this list or otherwise this week, choose items that will continue to shape your career as an author both now and when you can’t help it.
