Peer Review – A recap

The Stockholm University Press Blog celebrates #peerrevwk17 by looking back at our earlier interviews about Peer Review. The idea is to inspire dreams and visions that focus on possibilities and opportunities to improve the process to the benefit of researchers and their work.

We need though to discuss more on what is meant with a ”well done peer review”

“Personally I have always seen double-blind peer-reviewing as the way to go to ensure complete honesty from reviewers who may be faced with the need to write an unfavourable review”

A research driven publisher should give recognition for review part 1

A research driven publisher should give recognition for review part 2

The threat is that the core of the publishing process is invisible and never recognised at any level

Dreams and visions about the peer review process: part 1, part 2, part 3.

Would you like to write a guest blog post for Stockholm University Press Blog?

Read more on our website.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s