Peer review week

(19) rss icon
Peer review reports; what’s helpful and what’s not

A selection of Cambridge authors tell us what they like and what they don’t like about peer review reports. Author 1: Most helpful are comments on concrete issues attached to what is on paper in the manuscript, from spelling errors to formats of quotation to ambivalent expressions; unclear reasoning; missing or faulty references; suggestions for shortening; avoidance of redundancies; necessary/suggested expansion of reasoning; addition of illustrative examples etc.,…

Read more

A Sincere Thanks to Our Parasitology Reviewers

It takes a lot of people to publish an issue of Parasitology. Each year the journal successfully publishes 14 issues, with over 170 papers contained therein. Essential, of course, are our dedicated authors but there are also many “behind-the-scenes” people crucial in making sure we disseminate high quality research into the public domain

Read more

What does peer review do?

This blog accompanies the article The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965 by Noah Moxham and Aileen Fyfe published in The Historical Journal.…

Read more

The role of peer review in ethics and research integrity

Earlier this year, I attended the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Russell Group Research Integrity Forum joint event, where Ferdousi Chowdhury from Southampton University challenged us to think about why there are so many stages of peer review, and, specifically, what purpose these stages serve in relation to the integrity of research?…

Read more

A Year of Peer Review…in Review

It could go without saying that peer review is central to quality at Cambridge University Press, given that it has been a tool for providing valuable feedback to authors, improving the quality, and validating results for many years at the Press. …

Read more