Category Archives: peer review

The results are in for the journal selection survey

Two weeks ago I wrote a post about a recent paper by Salinas and Munch that presented a model-based method for determining to which journal an author should submit a manuscript for publication. I was curious to know how the readers … Continue reading

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare and Enjoy
Posted in career, Impact Factors, methods, peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?*

[We want to know what you think! Please click on the link at the bottom of the post to complete a short survey and/or share your thoughts about the publishing process in the comments section below] For better or worse, … Continue reading

Posted in career, funding, Impact Factors, peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment

Why is science publishing so damn expensive?

I read this article today. It kicks off with a familiar complaint about the cost of journal subscriptions: Taxpayers fund a lot of the science that gets done, academics (many of whom are also funded by public money) peer review it … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, science publishing | 10 Comments

They’ll let anything through peer review these days

… where “they” are the hordes of bogus pay-to-publish journals that seem to be spamming every .edu email address (especially those connected to corresponding authors in real journals) with invitations to submit. Submission spam from the International Journal of Advanced … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, science publishing | Leave a comment

Haldane’s Sieve

This week we have a guest post by Graham Coop and Joe Pickrell. Here, Graham [GC] and Joe [JKP] answer a few questions we had about the development and future of their blog, Haldane’s Sieve. If you’re interested in population genetics … Continue reading

Posted in blogging, community, interview, peer review, science publishing | Leave a comment

Peer review, reviewed

Rebecca Schuman, who has almost single-handedly turned Slate into one of best big websites for coverage of the many trials and tribulations of academia, turns to peer review for scholarly journals, in which an author’s academic peers volunteer to weigh … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, science publishing | 6 Comments

Mol Ecol’s best reviewers 2014

As a continuation of our post from last year, Molecular Ecology is publishing a list of our very best referees from the last two years (2012 and 2013). Our hope is that the people listed below will put ‘Top Reviewer … Continue reading

Posted in community, Molecular Ecology, the journal, peer review | 2 Comments

Why we sign our peer reviews

Last week I posted the results from a brief survey of our readers, asking whether they usually sign their peer reviews. In that small sample of evolutionary ecologists, the overwhelming majority said they review anonymously, though many participants seem to … Continue reading

Posted in career, community, peer review, science publishing | 5 Comments

Why we don’t sign our peer reviews

Last week I posted the results from a brief survey of our readers, asking whether they usually sign their peer reviews. In that small sample of evolutionary ecologists, the overwhelming majority said they review anonymously, though many participants seem to … Continue reading

Posted in career, community, peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment

Do we sign our peer reviews? Mostly, no.

Update, 24 November 2014: There’s been a renewed interest in this post, so now is as good a time as any to note that, in addition to this survey, I also posted written responses from folks who choose to sign … Continue reading

Posted in community, peer review, science publishing | 10 Comments