peer review

Jason Mittell's picture

Unmotivated Reading as Work

One of the most circulated and discussed articles in online academic circles last week was Bruce Henderson’s Chronicle piece arguing for the importance of acknowledging reading as a key part of our scholarly labor. ... read more »

ajuhasz's picture

“Blind” Review: You Can Ask to be Seen!

My friend and colleague, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, has written much and more on the state of academic publishing (and I recently edited a section on this in Cinema Journal) so I won’t go there again here. Kathleen’s recent book, Planned Obsolescence, is being openly peer-reviewed, on-line, at MediaCommonsPress: “open scholarship in open formats.” In this spirit of openness and full disclosure, I share my recent escapades in the dodgy realm of the “blind” review. For, “blind” reviews certainly achieve many things, including the cloaking of shoddy practices of those in control, the hiding of labor and promises behind shields of anonymity, and the use of outdated methods that have lost touch with current technologies as well as practices of publishing. ... read more »

Avi Santo's picture

Your participation needed for In Media Res FEEDBACK module

I am very excited to announce a new feature on In Media Res that allows users to offer feedback on how IMR posts are being used (for research, in classrooms, for general edification, etc.).

On every post page underneath the video field, readers will find a FEEDBACK form (you must be logged in to fill out the form, though not to view the results). Once logged in, members can let curators know whether or not their post has been useful for their research, has been cited in a publication, has been used as part of a classroom activity, has been thought provoking, or, if there are structural/organizational aspects of the post that might be improved upon in order to make it more effective.

IMR members can also continue to engage directly with curator posts through the comment field at the bottom right of every page. ... read more »

kfitz's picture

The Cost of Peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Publishing

As is being discussed a good bit around the academic blogo-/twittersphere this morning, Jennifer Howard reports in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education on a new report soon to be released by a committee organized by the National Humanities Alliance, entitled “The Future of Scholarly Journals Publishing Among Social Science and Humanities Associations.” This report seems to have a couple of compelling findings: first, that the per-article cost of journal publishing in the humanities and social sciences is more than three times as much as in the science, technical, and medical (a.k.a. STM) fields, and second, that this increased cost is due in no small part to the increased selectivity of those journals. ... read more »

kfitz's picture

Tenure in a Digital Era

Following up on my last post: Inside Higher Ed reports today on the HASTAC/MLA partnership working toward the development of new modes of thinking about tenure in the digital age. Most compelling there is Cheryl Ball’s comment about her own experiences in the early stages of putting together her digital tenure portfolio

kfitz's picture

Getting Serious About the Online Part of Research Online

Today’s Inside Higher Ed features an opinion piece by Sara Kubik, urging academics to “get serious” about online forms of research publication.

While it once made sense to equate print with quality, it’s time to embrace newer forms of communication as valid. If they need academically sound forms of verification and procedures for citation, let’s get to work.