Difference between revisions of "2012 The Transformation of Peer Review"

From AAUPwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
'''Chair:''' Kendra Boileau, Editor-in-Chief, Penn State University Press
 
'''Chair:''' Kendra Boileau, Editor-in-Chief, Penn State University Press
  
'''Panelists:''' Diane Harley, Principal Investigator for the Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing study
+
'''Panelists:''' Diane Harley, Principal Investigator for the Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing study; Karen Hill, Interim Director, University of Michigan Press;  Gita Manaktala, Editorial Director, MIT Press
  
  

Revision as of 20:15, 13 April 2012

University presses have served as gatekeepers for academic quality, primarily through the review process. What happens as university presses—and what we sell—change? What about trade books or born-digital projects? Open Access peer review: What happens when the Press gives up some of its authority in the review process? How does this serve the academic community? What do authors want in terms of review? What makes for a good book?



Chair: Kendra Boileau, Editor-in-Chief, Penn State University Press

Panelists: Diane Harley, Principal Investigator for the Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing study; Karen Hill, Interim Director, University of Michigan Press; Gita Manaktala, Editorial Director, MIT Press



Please feel free to add notes or responses to the session in this section. You can also post presentation files--find out how.





BACK TO AAUP 2012

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox