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.
- Thread twitter.com/reignofapril/s… 37 minutes ago
- Strangers commenting on my FB pages to make sure I know they don't care and we should get over it & stop whining. Bless their hearts 1 hour ago
- RT @mlhodge: "Funding matters, but so do our values, our patrons, our souls. Can we be bought off?" Eloquently said, @ThatAndromeda #alacou… 2 hours ago
- RT @mlhodge: "I do not want an organization willing to sell its soul for scraps at the federal table" @TheLiB #alacouncil #alamw17 2 hours ago
- RT @eclasper: Saying so much of what I've been thinking! @AprilHathcock #alamw17 #alacouncil 2 hours ago