Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Peer review timeframe

  • You cannot reply to this topic
4 replies to this topic

#1 ApochPiQ   Moderators   -  Reputation: 16401

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:19 PM

So I understand both the need for and ideas behind peer-reviewing articles. What I'm not as clear on is the actual practical specifics. For instance, I have two articles pending as "under review" (which, coincidentally, show as "Draft"s in the actual article list - bug?) which seem to have been viewed by absolutely no one.

Who actually is responsible for peer reviewing, and what is their average rate of getting through new material? Do we have any way for the reviewers (or the general community at large) to see a succinct list of articles awaiting peer review, so they know what outstanding work volume exists?

Sponsor:

#2 phil_t   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4094

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:57 AM

I'm curious about this too - I couldn't find any info on it.



#3 Michael Tanczos   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 5451

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 May 2013 - 07:15 PM

Right now the ones responsible for peer reviewing have been Crossbones+ members but Drew moves them from Draft to Under Review.   Moderators also have the ability since they too are vetted.   However, there is nothing that designates a reviewer as "expert" so for us peer reviewed refers to the fact that the article probably isn't total bullshit.   Of course, the community at large tends to smack down the articles that do tend to be very flawed..   it does provide some visible feedback for reviewers as well.

 

There is no timeframe for being under review.   Drew and I spoke about whether or not there should be some sort of "meh.. it's probably okay" state an article is in but staying in the "under review" state tends to be that.  

 

Also it is possible that for recent articles that they have been approved and are "Under Review" but have a publish date set to sometime in the future.  This is just to spread out the information flow and make sure that your article gets some frontpage time for people to comment on it and review it.


Edited by Michael Tanczos, 27 May 2013 - 07:15 PM.


#4 ApochPiQ   Moderators   -  Reputation: 16401

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:42 PM

I see what happened now.

 

Both articles were set to a future publication date (which I overlooked originally). One became available for "general review" today and has been getting hits and such ever since, and now also shows as "under review" in the main article list.

 

 

Since this is kind of a confusion point, and seems to have tripped up other authors, it may be worth specifically calling out someplace (or someplace more obvious if it's already documented) so that people understand the pipeline and don't feel like their articles are just going into a black hole.



#5 Michael Tanczos   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 5451

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2013 - 07:36 PM

I updated the AuthorCP to note that articles aren't live a bit better with a gray badge next to them.







PARTNERS