Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported
Blog powered by Typepad

« The Week's Best, 1 March 2010 | Main | The Week's Best, 8 March 2010 »

06 March 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

richard

Does JPRR have a policy on blinding self-cited work like Tom referenced? I've often thought this was the most difficult part of reviewing manuscripts, especially given how closely associated some scholars are with certain topics. As Tom notes, the "in press" makes it even easier to identify authors.

We're growing, but we're still pretty small. It's fairly easy to tell who's writing what when you look at the citation list and start reading a pattern of common phrases/thoughts in multiple manuscripts, articles.

The archiving of conference papers and programs also makes it pretty easy to Google manuscript titles to find out who submitted something.

Is there anyway to preserve the blind-review, or is it too becoming a thing of "old media"?

Bob Batchelor

Hi Karen,

This is a really valuable post! I enjoy the "inside the sausage grinder" viewpoint from you and Tom. From my perspective, I find it a much smoother process to submit to special topic issues of journals or volunteer to review for them, because the focus on the topic cuts out so much of the clutter and "unknownness" of the traditional toss it over the transom process.

Thanks for the perspective, it is much appreciated.

Tiffany Gallicano

Thanks for writing about this process. I like Richard's idea about having a policy on self-cited work for in-press publications.

Karen Russell

Thanks for the comments. Richard and Tiffany, there's not a specific policy but in a few instances we have recommended that people use (Author, 2010) or (Author, in press) -- it does kind of mess with the editing process later, but it's better than obviously identifying the author. Other times we've missed some that should have been caught; in one instance a reviewer was upset that the identity was kind of obvious. I'll add it to the list of things that should be done when the "Instructions to Authors" section on the Web site is next updated.

The comments to this entry are closed.