background preloader

Editing & reviewing

Facebook Twitter

NZJE Reviewer Mentoring Scheme. Fostering the next generation of reviewers in New Zealand ecology Recently, the New Zealand Journal of Ecology announced a trial of a mentoring scheme for new reviewers (Curran et al. 2013), based on others suggested elsewhere (MFR 2008, Donaldson et al. 2010; Zimmerman et al. 2011).

NZJE Reviewer Mentoring Scheme

This webpage reiterates the plans for that scheme and provides more details on its implementation. Contents Why establish a mentoring scheme for new reviewers? Peer review is the main quality control process in science. At the same time that this reviewing crisis has unfolded there have been increases in the number of students undertaking postgraduate research degrees. Traditionally, students would only be asked to review a paper if offered to do so by their supervisor or if they had already published in the peer-reviewed literature (Zimmerman et al. 2011).

There are many benefits to having early-career researchers review papers (MFR 2008; Donaldson et al. 2010). If we want to improve peer review, we'll need to invest in training. You’ve just accepted your first invitation to peer review a journal article.

If we want to improve peer review, we'll need to invest in training

The paper is the culmination of years of the author’s research and its publication is an important next step. You want to get it right; give constructive feedback, check whether it works for the journal, and generally improve the quality of the article. Six month friday night curry subscription by the spicery. Made in Britain can be personalised The Friday Night Curry Discoverer subscription contains all the fresh spices and recipes you need to make a fantastic curry spread every month.

six month friday night curry subscription by the spicery

Spices are at their best when really fresh, and our spice boxes make using them easy and convenient. Every month a new curry spice box arrives in the post with all the spices measured out to make a curry spread four. NeuroChambers: The things you hate most about submitting manuscripts. A few days ago I asked the twittersphere what rubs people the wrong way when it comes to submitting manuscripts to peer reviewed academic journals.

NeuroChambers: The things you hate most about submitting manuscripts

Oh let us count the ways. From the irritation of having to reformat references to fit some journal’s arbitrary style, to consigning figures and captions to the end of a submission as though it really is still 1988, to the pointlessness of cover letters where all you want to say is “Dear Editor, here is our paper” but feel the need to throw in some gumpf about how amazing your results are. The author’s side of peer review. By Kristin Hoffmann Associate Librarian, University of Western Ontario In the last few months, Brain-Work has featured two discussions of peer review: How to be an effective peer reviewer and Peer reviewing as a foundation of research culture, both aimed at librarians who might be serving as reviewers.

The author’s side of peer review

It’s not a vote: How editors use peer reviews. Picture this.

It’s not a vote: How editors use peer reviews

The same article receives these three reviewer recommendations: • Reviewer #1: Recommends rejecting the manuscript for publication. Comments include a need to demonstrate that analyses were two-tailed tests, better defend the use of a certain statistic to judge model fit, and add several points to the Discussion section. • Reviewer #2: Recommends that the authors revise and resubmit. Comments, which include disparaging language (“surprisingly weak,” “obvious to others in the field”), note cumbersome writing, insufficient literature review, and overly long Discussion section. • Reviewer #3: Recommends that the editor accept the paper.

Comments include suggestions on how to clarify the research questions, details that should be added on the sampling and data collection approach, a recommendation to add a table of correlations, and aspects of the findings that could be highlighted in the Discussion. Why You Gotta Be So Mean? - Do Your Job Better. This summer I took my 11-year-old daughter and her friend to a Taylor Swift concert.

Why You Gotta Be So Mean? - Do Your Job Better

There were screaming teens, a boy-band warm-up group, and production values that felt like I had stepped into a music video. It was exactly what I had expected, with one exception. During a pause in the music, Swift told us how when she was younger, she had received her share of bullying at school. Delicious. How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors. Writing for academic journals is highly competitive.

How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors

What I wish i'd known. February 11, 2015 | Professor Elliot Shubert Editor-in-Chief, Systematics and Biodiversity What I wish I’d known when I first started editing a journal How teamwork and an online submission system helped one editor Taking over a journal can be challenging but there are saving factors, including online submission systems.

What I wish i'd known

Discover how simple changes helped one editor, and how being an editor isn’t a “one-man show.” Read more... January 7, 2015 | Vicki Luker, Executive Editor The Journal of Pacific History. 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing. August 13, 2015 A couple of months ago, we wrote an article for highlighting how academic publishing companies have hurt the progress of Science.

7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing

They published the article today on their website, and we're very happy with how the final article turned out (except for their choice of title...). Our original submission was much longer than what was published, so we thought we would post the unedited version here on our website.