<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Peer review or smear review?  Reflections on a rigged system.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/</link>
	<description>History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 06:01:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The IPCC: Bogus data on &#34;Climate Sensitivity&#34;!!! - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1406137</link>
		<dc:creator>The IPCC: Bogus data on &#34;Climate Sensitivity&#34;!!! - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-1406137</guid>
		<description>[...] with the &quot;peer review&quot; nonsense.  That shit is rigged and has been for centuries.   Peer review or smear review? Reflections on a rigged system. : Historiann : History and sexual polit...   __________________ &quot;The sword is an emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] with the &quot;peer review&quot; nonsense.  That shit is rigged and has been for centuries.   Peer review or smear review? Reflections on a rigged system. : Historiann : History and sexual polit&#8230;   __________________ &quot;The sword is an emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Peer Review to the Wisdom of Crowds? Open Access &#38; Peer Review &#124; History Workshop</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1226527</link>
		<dc:creator>From Peer Review to the Wisdom of Crowds? Open Access &#38; Peer Review &#124; History Workshop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-1226527</guid>
		<description>[...] should take very seriously voices of discontent, and proposals for improvement – for example that reviewers should sign their reviews. But I am not convinced that moving to a universal system of no or light-touch peer review would do [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] should take very seriously voices of discontent, and proposals for improvement – for example that reviewers should sign their reviews. But I am not convinced that moving to a universal system of no or light-touch peer review would do [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Historiann</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1085166</link>
		<dc:creator>Historiann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-1085166</guid>
		<description>Silly Wabbit:  I feel your pain!  This is another reason I always sign my reviews.  It give the authors an opportunity (if they want it) to correspond with me about my review.  

I think you&#039;re well within your rights to correspond with the editor to ask for hir clarification, and/or to ask hir to forward your questions on to the reviewers.  Then ze can leave it up to the reviewers as to whether or not they want to be in touch directly with you, or perhaps just convey the response through the editor.

But, disciplinary conventions vary--in my field this would be ok, but I would consult friends and colleagues in your field.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Silly Wabbit:  I feel your pain!  This is another reason I always sign my reviews.  It give the authors an opportunity (if they want it) to correspond with me about my review.  </p>
<p>I think you&#8217;re well within your rights to correspond with the editor to ask for hir clarification, and/or to ask hir to forward your questions on to the reviewers.  Then ze can leave it up to the reviewers as to whether or not they want to be in touch directly with you, or perhaps just convey the response through the editor.</p>
<p>But, disciplinary conventions vary&#8211;in my field this would be ok, but I would consult friends and colleagues in your field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Silly Wabbit</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1084973</link>
		<dc:creator>Silly Wabbit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-1084973</guid>
		<description>I just stumbled on this while I should be working....

I find it frustrating that peer review does not allow me to request clarification from reviewers.....I&#039;ve had reviewers make negative comments that don&#039;t make sense. I think there should be a system in place in which you can request for a reviewers to restate a portion of their review if it if unclear.

I&#039;ve found it difficult to dissect a few &quot;word salads&quot; that I have gotten back from reviewers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just stumbled on this while I should be working&#8230;.</p>
<p>I find it frustrating that peer review does not allow me to request clarification from reviewers&#8230;..I&#8217;ve had reviewers make negative comments that don&#8217;t make sense. I think there should be a system in place in which you can request for a reviewers to restate a portion of their review if it if unclear.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve found it difficult to dissect a few &#8220;word salads&#8221; that I have gotten back from reviewers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Multanemo</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-550393</link>
		<dc:creator>Multanemo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-550393</guid>
		<description>Update: The article was accepted for publication with minor revisions. Not bad for a first year PhD student! I have another article out for review and I will keep everyone posted. But I have a good feeling. Thank you for this blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Update: The article was accepted for publication with minor revisions. Not bad for a first year PhD student! I have another article out for review and I will keep everyone posted. But I have a good feeling. Thank you for this blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hug an Editor Day: Journal of the History of Sexuality : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-547845</link>
		<dc:creator>Hug an Editor Day: Journal of the History of Sexuality : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-547845</guid>
		<description>[...] readers who must have read and responded to the article in an extremely timely fashion.  Because I&#8217;ve b!tched about the peer-review process at journals generally here, I thought I should recognize a journal that was exceptionally [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] readers who must have read and responded to the article in an extremely timely fashion.  Because I&#8217;ve b!tched about the peer-review process at journals generally here, I thought I should recognize a journal that was exceptionally [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Multanemo</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-498383</link>
		<dc:creator>Multanemo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-498383</guid>
		<description>Wow! I am currently a PhD candidate in history and have been publishing since my MA days, which were not that long ago. I started with local and regional journals first, then moved on to more prestigious and national ones. I found it easy to publish in peer-reviewed journal at the local historical society because, well, I could walk into their offices and sell the story. However, the national journals have been tougher to crack. First time I submitted to one I got a rejection in three weeks! And this was after the article had been revised at least ten times! Second time I submitted to a journal outside my home state I was told that my approach was &quot;too sociological.&quot; 

Well, hopefully, third time will be the charm. I actually met the third editor in person and spoke with him for an hour at a conference I presented at. In addition, I had him read the article first before I formally submitted to the journal. He liked it so I gave it a shot. Finally, I had sent this article out for my own peer review process to several top scholars in my field, Jewish American history; most agreed that it was insightful and more than worthy of being published. Surprise, surprise! I emailed one of those scholars a few days ago with my latest work and he know that he wrote a &quot;very, very positive readers report. This guy is a big deal so I hope the journal listens to him!

I will let you all know what becomes of it. But even at this very early stage in the game, and it is a game, I know not to give up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow! I am currently a PhD candidate in history and have been publishing since my MA days, which were not that long ago. I started with local and regional journals first, then moved on to more prestigious and national ones. I found it easy to publish in peer-reviewed journal at the local historical society because, well, I could walk into their offices and sell the story. However, the national journals have been tougher to crack. First time I submitted to one I got a rejection in three weeks! And this was after the article had been revised at least ten times! Second time I submitted to a journal outside my home state I was told that my approach was &#8220;too sociological.&#8221; </p>
<p>Well, hopefully, third time will be the charm. I actually met the third editor in person and spoke with him for an hour at a conference I presented at. In addition, I had him read the article first before I formally submitted to the journal. He liked it so I gave it a shot. Finally, I had sent this article out for my own peer review process to several top scholars in my field, Jewish American history; most agreed that it was insightful and more than worthy of being published. Surprise, surprise! I emailed one of those scholars a few days ago with my latest work and he know that he wrote a &#8220;very, very positive readers report. This guy is a big deal so I hope the journal listens to him!</p>
<p>I will let you all know what becomes of it. But even at this very early stage in the game, and it is a game, I know not to give up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peer Review 2.0 (2.0) - Ontario Library Association Superconference &#171; info-fetishist</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-200841</link>
		<dc:creator>Peer Review 2.0 (2.0) - Ontario Library Association Superconference &#171; info-fetishist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-200841</guid>
		<description>[...] Peer Review or Smear Review? Reflections on a Rigged System (Historiann, May 2, 2008). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Peer Review or Smear Review? Reflections on a Rigged System (Historiann, May 2, 2008). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peer Review: editors versus authors smackdown edition : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-92205</link>
		<dc:creator>Peer Review: editors versus authors smackdown edition : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-92205</guid>
		<description>[...] spring when I posted on the vagaries and arbitrary nature of the peer review process for publishing journal articles and books, we had quite a conversation.  Here are two articles that address peer review for journal [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] spring when I posted on the vagaries and arbitrary nature of the peer review process for publishing journal articles and books, we had quite a conversation.  Here are two articles that address peer review for journal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Historiann</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2008/05/02/peer-review-or-smear-review-reflections-on-a-rigged-system/comment-page-1/#comment-8714</link>
		<dc:creator>Historiann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 01:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=293#comment-8714</guid>
		<description>history maven--thanks so much for stopping by to leave such an informative comment.  You give a great overview of the whole process, and you&#039;re very fair to the good-faith actors!  I should say, re: your comments and Susan&#039;s comments, that upon reflection I have been part of double-blind review processes for journals as a reviewer.  (Who knows what happened in the case of the journals that never sent me readers&#039; reports, though!)  The single-blind reviews I&#039;ve done were for book manuscripts and book proposals, not for journal articles.  (I wonder why the difference?)

Another issue you brought up history maven, which I considered addressing but the post was getting long, is the growth and proliferation of the &quot;special issue.&quot;  It feels like the number of articles published by any journal anymore is about half (or less than half) what it used to be.  This practice again raises questions in my mind about the difference between publishing an article in a book versus in a journal, when these &quot;special issues&quot; are edited by a guest editor who undoubtedly has in most cases solicited manuscripts from friends and acquaintances, and who probably has a greater degree of liberty than editors who are abiding by the standard review process.  (When I was a junior faculty member and first started publishing 11 years ago, senior faculty used to make a big deal over the difference between articles in books and articles in journals, but I think people have settled down and now accept them as equivalent.) Still, special issues seem to take up a lot of space that otherwise went to unsolicited articles.

And Sqadratomagico:  you&#039;re entirely right about my utopian author-friendly scheme!  But, maybe it would make journals sharper about which articles they sent out to readers, and which they rejected out of hand.  I think journals need to develop a new &quot;prejection letter&quot; saying, &quot;thanks for your article, but we&#039;re not really interested in stuff in this field right now.&quot;  (I think some journals do this.)  That would seem to be more honest than putting an article through the review process when an editor clearly wasn&#039;t interested in publishing an article.  (Although, with the existence of e-mail, it would seem odd I suppose for someone to send an article somewhere that was wildly off-base.  I&#039;ve had good luck e-mailing editors and asking if they have any interest whatsoever in an article before sending it to them--sometimes you get a politely tepid letter encouraging you to send it on, but other times you get a stronger response, either way!)

Susan--a friend of mine was a student of Judith Bennett, and your &quot;best advice&quot; was her advice, too:  she told my friend to have 3 copies of the article in addressed envelopes ready to go, so that if the first journal you sent it to rejected you, you send it on to the next journal unrevised and continue the process uninterrupted!  (Was it Judith Bennett who gave you that advice!)  I liked the moxie--&quot;screw you if you don&#039;t like my article, someone else surely will!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>history maven&#8211;thanks so much for stopping by to leave such an informative comment.  You give a great overview of the whole process, and you&#8217;re very fair to the good-faith actors!  I should say, re: your comments and Susan&#8217;s comments, that upon reflection I have been part of double-blind review processes for journals as a reviewer.  (Who knows what happened in the case of the journals that never sent me readers&#8217; reports, though!)  The single-blind reviews I&#8217;ve done were for book manuscripts and book proposals, not for journal articles.  (I wonder why the difference?)</p>
<p>Another issue you brought up history maven, which I considered addressing but the post was getting long, is the growth and proliferation of the &#8220;special issue.&#8221;  It feels like the number of articles published by any journal anymore is about half (or less than half) what it used to be.  This practice again raises questions in my mind about the difference between publishing an article in a book versus in a journal, when these &#8220;special issues&#8221; are edited by a guest editor who undoubtedly has in most cases solicited manuscripts from friends and acquaintances, and who probably has a greater degree of liberty than editors who are abiding by the standard review process.  (When I was a junior faculty member and first started publishing 11 years ago, senior faculty used to make a big deal over the difference between articles in books and articles in journals, but I think people have settled down and now accept them as equivalent.) Still, special issues seem to take up a lot of space that otherwise went to unsolicited articles.</p>
<p>And Sqadratomagico:  you&#8217;re entirely right about my utopian author-friendly scheme!  But, maybe it would make journals sharper about which articles they sent out to readers, and which they rejected out of hand.  I think journals need to develop a new &#8220;prejection letter&#8221; saying, &#8220;thanks for your article, but we&#8217;re not really interested in stuff in this field right now.&#8221;  (I think some journals do this.)  That would seem to be more honest than putting an article through the review process when an editor clearly wasn&#8217;t interested in publishing an article.  (Although, with the existence of e-mail, it would seem odd I suppose for someone to send an article somewhere that was wildly off-base.  I&#8217;ve had good luck e-mailing editors and asking if they have any interest whatsoever in an article before sending it to them&#8211;sometimes you get a politely tepid letter encouraging you to send it on, but other times you get a stronger response, either way!)</p>
<p>Susan&#8211;a friend of mine was a student of Judith Bennett, and your &#8220;best advice&#8221; was her advice, too:  she told my friend to have 3 copies of the article in addressed envelopes ready to go, so that if the first journal you sent it to rejected you, you send it on to the next journal unrevised and continue the process uninterrupted!  (Was it Judith Bennett who gave you that advice!)  I liked the moxie&#8211;&#8221;screw you if you don&#8217;t like my article, someone else surely will!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
