Emerging from a project run by the Amherst College Press and the MIT Press, a recent report examines the proposal for a set of agreed definitions for the specific objects and processes of peer review – what gets reviewed, and how it gets reviewed. This interesting topic came to us from the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) in their article, “Transparency in Standards and Practices of Peer Review.”
The unique authority of scholarly publishing arises from the rigorous evaluation and assessment works must go through before they are published. Besides deciding what and how, the process of peer review requires an open process. This is how Peer Review Transparency, an initiative of scholarly publishers, academic librarians, technology innovators, and thought leaders in scholarly communication with support from the Open Society Foundations, came to be. They were to create agreed definitions of how peer review is conducted, and to disclose clearly and efficiently to readers the kind of review a published work has undergone.
Melody K. Smith
Sponsored by Access Innovations, the world leader in taxonomies, metadata, and semantic enrichment to make your content findable.
