"...(a) articles represent research not previously published (i.e., first disclosure...), (b) articles are reviewed by peers before being accepted or rejected by a journal, and (c) articles are archival (i.e., retrievable for future reference)."
(Publication Manual..., 1994, p.291)
"...what constitutes a refereed journal varies widely from journal to journal...If manuscripts are regularly sent out of the editorial offices for reviews by peers...If the reviewers do not know the name of the author or the institution with which the author is affiliated...If the journal furnishes its reviewers with a rating instrument...merely meeting these criteria does not insure quality."
(Henson, 1990, p. 801)
"Editors of many professional journals are working professionals themselves, chosen by their peers and perhaps serving only part-time in their editorial capacity...Usually this means a refereeing process, in which two or three specialists are asked to comment on your work, and to recommend for or against publication...editor will collect the reviews and make a decision about the publishability of your work."
(Barnes, 1986, p. 125)
"...reflects scholarship...few could accurately define it...journal refereeing has three common characteristics: where, how and by whom the refereeing occurs...Generally, the jurors or referees are to be considered peers in the profession...are carefully chosen for their reputations...throughout their fields as experts."
(Henson, 1999, p. 123)
"Another aspect of refereeing is location...all refereed processes must be nationwide because it ensures a national viewpoint as opposed to a provincial perspective...published on large university campuses...how the manuscripts are evaluated. The most loosely conducted evaluations consist merely of the reviewers’ subjective opinions...most rigid evaluators provide evaluation instruments to referees across the country and conduct the reviews anonymously."
(Henson, 1999, p. 123-124)
"A refereed journal sends manuscripts to professionals in the journal’s field of specialization for their reading, analysis, appraisal, and recommendation as to the appropriateness of the manuscript for that journal...refereeing indicates that an article competing for space in the journal is read by outside readers. The referees may be members of the journal’s editorial board. They may be chosen from a panel of names accumulated by the editors and advisors...usually highly experienced professionals."
(Van Til, 1981, p. 54, 75)
"With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge...blind review process means that the author of the manuscript is not known to the reviewer...the name of the reviewers for a particular manuscript is not known to the author...When two reviewers are used it provides a broader perspective for evaluating the research."
(Cabell’s, 1998/99, p. xx)
Note: A number of years ago, Henson worked with Van Til and was later in one of his classes on writing.
Barnes, Gregory A. Write for Success: A Guide for Business and the Professions. 1986. (808.042 B261w)
Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Education. Vols. 1&2, 1998/99.
(Ref 070.594 C114)
Henson, Kenneth T. "Writing for Education Journals." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 71, No. 10, June, 1990.
Henson, Kenneth T. Writing for Professional Publication: Keys to Academic and Business Success. 1999. (PN151.H447 1999)
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 4th edition, 1994. (Reference Desk)
Van Til, William. Writing for Professional Publication. 1981. (808.025 V282w)
"Peer review and publication of scholarly articles would be radically altered under a new plan being promoted by a small but influential group of academics. The group hopes the change would create new outlets for professors’ work, both in print and on line.
The motive is primarily financial. Supporters of the plan want to create alternatives to high-priced journals, particularly in science and technology, for which annual subscriptions can cost as much as $15,000 a piece. University leaders backing the plan want to encourage scholars to publish less often in such journals, and instead to post their scholarly work more frequently on electronic sites. And they want universities to give up requiring that professors actually publish their work as a key step toward tenure or promotion...paper that endorses exploration of a new form of peer review. The point is not to change the goals of peer review—identifying the best ideas and getting them out to the field—but to create a new way to meet those goals.
In the current system of peer review, professors who want to get their ideas out must publish them in a scholarly journal, either non-profit or commercial. They submit their papers to a journal, which solicits reviews from two or three experts in the field. The experts, who usually remain anonymous to the authors, decide whether an article should be published.
The new proposal has been described as ‘decoupling,’ because it would separate peer review from publishing. Instead of sending an article to a journal to be reviewed, professors would send their work to a ‘certification panel’ in their field...The panels, which would be established by scholarly groups, would use the same kinds of experts that journals now use. But the new panels would give each article a grade or a stamp of approval. A professor could then do one of several things: try to get the article published in a major journal, take the article to one of several non-profit journals that would accept a certification panel’s stamp of approval, or post the article on a World-Wide Web site and skip print publication altogether." (The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 26, 1998, p. A12-13)
"...editors...warn that the electronic preprints could lead to a proliferation of drafts of papers that could confuse scholars and the public. Some editors way that they also threaten the concept of peer review, because the preprint servers, which often are accessible to any Internet user, enable people to read versions of papers that have not yet been formally evaluated.
But fans say e-prints are little different than scholars’ age-old practice of distributing drafts of papers to colleagues long before they appear in print, such as by handing out papers at a conference or mailing them to fellow researchers. And, they say the public already learns about research in progress through the popular media." (The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 17, 1998, p. A27-29)
"...Harold Varmus, director of the National Institutes of Health, has proposed putting medical research online in a publicly funded journal to be called E-biomed...would not rely on ads, it logically would be less susceptible to such pressures...would be offered free...to offset some remaining costs by charging moderate fees for submissions.
Old-guard medical publishers like the New England Journal of Medicine are lining up in opposition...would erode peer review, the rigorous approval system that ensures the scientific value of medical journal articles. But there’s no reason why peer review for an Internet journal would be any less rigorous than for conventional journals." (Los Angeles Times, 07/12/99, p. B-4; accessed through Dow Jones Interactive)
4/00
KS