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

From AAUPwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
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?
+
Peer review, in some form, is an accepted part of the acquiring process for university presses. For press editors, it informs their evaluation and decision-making processes; for authors, it is an important step in the publication process that helps to strengthen the quality and impact of their book. This panel will examine from several perspectives the dominant peer-review model in university press publishing—its merits and faults. In doing so, it will assess peer review’s complicated relationship with publishers, authors, and the Academy, considering ways to transform the process into a more sustainable practice. For an editor or an author, what makes a helpful reader’s report? How do we best navigate the review of work that is interdisciplinary? How might university presses avoid becoming the unwitting participants in the tenure and promotion process for our authors, when all we really want to do is publish a good book? Should we be bypassed in the peer-review process altogether? What is the value of publication-based peer review to the Academy? Should imprint, or venue of publication, be a deciding factor in institutional peer review for tenure and promotion? We’ll go down these and other rabbit holes as we discuss this important evaluative function.
  
  
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; Gita Manaktala, Editorial Director, MIT Press
+
'''Panelists:''' Diane Harley, Principal Investigator for the Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing study
 +
 
 +
Gita Manaktala, Editorial Director, MIT Press
 +
 
 +
Martha T. Roth, Dean of Humanities and the Chauncey S. Boucher Distinguished Service Professor of Assyriology, University of Chicago
  
  

Revision as of 20:25, 11 May 2012

Peer review, in some form, is an accepted part of the acquiring process for university presses. For press editors, it informs their evaluation and decision-making processes; for authors, it is an important step in the publication process that helps to strengthen the quality and impact of their book. This panel will examine from several perspectives the dominant peer-review model in university press publishing—its merits and faults. In doing so, it will assess peer review’s complicated relationship with publishers, authors, and the Academy, considering ways to transform the process into a more sustainable practice. For an editor or an author, what makes a helpful reader’s report? How do we best navigate the review of work that is interdisciplinary? How might university presses avoid becoming the unwitting participants in the tenure and promotion process for our authors, when all we really want to do is publish a good book? Should we be bypassed in the peer-review process altogether? What is the value of publication-based peer review to the Academy? Should imprint, or venue of publication, be a deciding factor in institutional peer review for tenure and promotion? We’ll go down these and other rabbit holes as we discuss this important evaluative function.



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

Gita Manaktala, Editorial Director, MIT Press

Martha T. Roth, Dean of Humanities and the Chauncey S. Boucher Distinguished Service Professor of Assyriology, University of Chicago



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