Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014) recently summarized a number of important issues related to the quality of peer review and current peer-review practice in kinesiology. This writer endorses their six recommendations for improving peer review in kinesiology journals. The purpose of this commentary is to further highlight the importance of…

The authors--drawing on their varied experiences as authors and publishers of a journal and several book series--provide a historical review and consideration of peer review in publishing. They find that scholarly peer review, from the question of signed reviews to the practices of digital publications, is in the midst of change, but that at the…

Much of academic publishing depends on peer review, a literary form that never sees the light of day and only rarely reveals its author's name to the intended reader. While a negative judgment can be upsetting, the serious review, no matter what the ultimate verdict on publication, normally contains probing comments and suggestions that will keep…

Describes the controversy that arose over an editor's decision to overrule an ad hoc action editor's acceptance of a journal article and request for additional changes to the manuscript. This controversy played out in various Internet discussion groups. Presents the editor's perspective, highlighting the need to protect the integrity and…

Primary source peer reviewed journals are the gold standard for biomedical science. Relationships between journal owners, who have total business authority, and editors, who have total intellectual authority, are often strained. Adherence to "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" of the International…

Peer review is the primary means of ensuring the maintenance of standards that are deemed appropriate for scientific publications. There are many similarities, but also some differences, in the way the review process is conducted by different editors, and there are differences among reviewers in how they deal with the same manuscript--the…

Presents five rules of scientific review and publishing: judge scientific articles only by their logic and strength of their evidence; accept results of a competent peer review; resist efforts to judge articles on the basis of political concerns; abide by the same rules of logic and evidence applied to all scientific work despite disagreement with…

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals--William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich,…

Discusses scholarly communication, functions of scholarly journals, and the possibility of changing from a printed version to an electronic journal. Highlights include dissemination; timeliness; peer review; recognition and award; rising costs of printed journals and decreasing serials budgets in academic libraries; paradigm shifts; and new models…