Category Archives: peer review

what does a book proposal reviewer do?

A post for academic book week. When you send in a book proposal to a publisher, chances are that it will be sent out to reviewers. This is peer review – and a version that actually gets talked about very little. … Continue reading

Posted in book proposal, peer review, reviews, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

what did that peer reviewer actually mean?

We all know that real estate agents write in code. Renovation potential means it’s a dump. First home buyer’s dream means it’s a dump. Original condition means it’s a dump. Now, journal reviewers have codes too. You may find that … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, reviewer speak, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

the appraisal and rejection of conference abstracts

I had an email recently from an early career researcher who’d just had an abstract for a conference knocked back. When they asked for feedback, they were shocked by what they read. Presumably assuming that the writer would never see … Continue reading

Posted in abstracts, conference papers, early career researchers, peer review, rejection, reviewing | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

a case of conflicting reviewer comments

So you’ve sent the paper into the journal and now the referee comments are in your in-box. You finally pluck up the courage to open the email and what do you find? Contradictory comments. Not helpful. Not at all. We … Continue reading

Posted in conflicting reviews, journal, journal editor, peer review, refereeing | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

research track record – how do you get it?

One of the things that can count for or against you when bidding for research project money is track record. All funders would like to give their money to someone who they are pretty confident can produce the goods. So … Continue reading

Posted in early career researchers, peer review, publication plan, research funding, research mentoring, research plan, track record | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

what’s at stake for an early career researcher in going for publication in a top ranked journal ?

I often get asked in workshops whether early career researchers should aim to get into a top journal. I want to give the first two parts of my answer in this post. My first response – WHO IS SAYING THIS … Continue reading

Posted in acceptance, emotional labour, journal, online publishing, peer review, publishing, rejection, scholarly identity, top ranked journal | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

refereeing a journal article. part 3. writing the feedback

Having read the article carefully, and decided whether it’s accept without change, revise and resubmit or reject, there is now the task of writing the feedback to the author/s. There are four things to keep in mind when writing feedback: … Continue reading

Posted in feedback, journal, peer review, refereeing | Tagged , , , , | 14 Comments