This is an excellent data-driven analysis of peer review, which calls into question the conventional wisdom that increasing demands on key scholars for reviews has broken the peer review system. By looking at actual aggregate data, Tim Vines shows that “…while it’s natural to join the dots between rising submissions and your own workload, and from there to the imminent demise of peer review, the connections may not really exist.” In fact, it appears that while senior scholars may be being bombarded by review requests, the increase is due to their own increased prominence, not to any systemic factors.
- RT @techreview: As robots learn faster than ever, do humans need new ways to keep up? trib.al/9w6JwLf 5 hours ago
- #DailyJiffy https://t.co/WH91hEcrrt 7 hours ago
- it me twitter.com/every_lesbian/… 8 hours ago
- RT @grasshopperpie: WE NEED MORE READERS. But ultimately I think we, as a society, need to decide if art (all kinds of art) are something w… 8 hours ago
- RT @SeattleArts: There's a Roxane Gay scholarship for an LGBTQ woman of color, 40 or older, writing in any genre. You should apply: https:/… 8 hours ago