1 / 6

Implications for Librarians

Implications for Librarians. Understanding peer review processes is necessary in order to assist scholars in making successful transitions to new models of publishing. Conclusion.

lamar
Télécharger la présentation

Implications for Librarians

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implications for Librarians • Understanding peer review processes is necessary in order to assist scholars in making successful transitions to new models of publishing

  2. Conclusion “Peer review, or ‘expert review’ is… about balancing one expert opinion against another. The challenge is not whether peer review is an essential aspect of scholarship because there is no alternative to having experts look at things and make judgments.” Sir Mark Walport, Director, Wellcome Trust

  3. References Burnham, J.C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1323-1329. DeMaria, A. (2010). Editor’s page - peer review: the weakest link. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 55 , 1161-1162. Ghazoul, J. (2011). Editorial: reviewing peer review. Biotropica, 43(1), 1-2. Hernon, P. and Schwartz, C. (2006). Editorial: peer review revisited. Library & Information Science Research, 28, 1-3. Horton, R. (2011, February 9). Peer review: written evidence submitted by Richard Horton (PR 02). UK Parliament Website. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m02.htm Hurd, J.M. (1996). Information technology: catalyst for change in scientific communication. Unpublished paper presented at the 17th Annual International Association of Scientific and Technological University Libraries, Irvine, CA. Retrieved June 12, 2011 from: www.iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/1996/hurd.doc

  4. References, continued Kelly, M.J. (2011, February 25). Peer review: written evidence submitted by Professor Michael J Kelly FRS FREng (PR 09).UK Parliament Website. Retrieved from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m09.htm Knoll, E. (1990). The communities of scientists and journal peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10), 1330-1332. Morrison, H. (2011, January 5). PLoS ONE: now the world’s largest journal? The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/01/plos-one-now-worlds-largest-journal.html Morrison, H. G. (2009). Scholarly communication for librarians. Oxford: Chandos. Mulligan, A. & Raphael, E. (2010). Peer review in a changing world – preliminary findings of a global study. Serials 23(1), 25-34. Rodriguez, M.A., Bollan, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). The convergence of digital-libraries and the peer-review process. Journal of Information Science, 36(2), Retrieved June 12, 2011 from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/lanl/digital_libraries_converge.pdf

  5. References, continued Rowland, F. (2002). The peer review process: a report to the JISC scholarly communications group. Retrieved June 5, 2011 from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/infoenvironment/rowland.pdf Rylance, R. (2011, June 8). Peer Review. UK Parliament HoC Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8528 Smith, R. (2010, March 22). Richard Smith: scrap peer review and beware of “top journals.” BMJ Group Blogs. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/03/22/richard-smith-scrap-peer-review-and-beware-of-%E2%80%9Ctop-journals%E2%80%9D/ Smith, R. (2011, April 6). Richard Smith: what is post-publication peer review? BMJ Group Blogs. Retrieved June 11, 2011: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/ Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in biotechnology 20 (8), 357-358.

  6. References, continued Suls, J. & Martin, R. (2009). The air we breathe: a critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(1), 40-50. Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: perspectives of the scholarly community – an international study. Retrieved June 12, 2011 from: http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf Walport, M. (2011, June 8). Peer Review. UK Parliament HoC Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved June 11, 2011 from: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8528 Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking16, 23-53.

More Related