Dear Wouter,
There is a lot to say in support of more tranparency. For any system to succeed
it will need wide adoption. So perhaps Elsevier and Thomson Reuters could join
forces here and decide on a commonly used system to be comprehensively
available in Scopus as well as WoS and preferably
Dear Claire and other members of OASPA, COPE, DOAJ WAME
Paper is patient. Journal will explain that they do peer review, double blind,
whatever you wish.
But I think you should award journals for their degree in transparency for the
peer review process.
Dear Dana,
Unfortunately this is only partly true. The epub ahead of print
practices vary a lot. Even though articles after acceptance could be
copy-edited straight away and posted, editors and publishers don't want
to have excessive lists of dozens of articles up there, especially if
they
Dear all,
With regards to this really excellent initiative I am looking in to the various
degrees in transparency of the peer review process. Has anybody examples at
hand of editorials, where they give an overview of number of articles
submitted, and ultimately accepted, and the time the whole
You could check out
http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf
as well as
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000710
green version
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sugimoto/preprints/Journalacceptancerates.pdf
Bo-Christer
On 12/21/13 5:43 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
Re: “Publishing in scholarly peer reviewed journals usually entails long
delays from submission to publication. In part this is due to the length of
the peer review process and in part because of the dominating tradition of
publication in issues, earlier a necessity of paper‐based publishing,
Wouter,
Scirev, though having been live for a only a few weeks now, already has
hundreds of crowdsourced journal reviews with information on peer review turn
around times: http://scirev.sc/
But it would be nice indeed if we had more comprehensive data on this.
Best,
Jeroen
Op 21 dec. 2013
Dear Bo-Christer,
I am aware of the really useful studies your group makes.
However, I am looking into the the transparence of the eer review process on
the journals side.
A self included analysis on the journals side, say yearly, on the number of
submissions, the acceptance rates would be
