Open Review: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
See our entry on [[Open Peer Review]] | See also our entry on [[Open Peer Review]] | ||
=Report= | |||
'''* Open Review: A Study of Contexts and Practices. MediaCommons and NYU Press, 2013.''' | |||
URL = http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/open-review/ [http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/open-review/files/2012/06/MediaCommons_Open_Review_White_Paper_final.pdf download] | |||
=Description= | |||
"In April 2011, MediaCommons and NYU Press jointly received a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to support a year-long study of open review practices and possibilities. The document that follows is a draft of the white paper that will serve as the grant’s primary outcome. We are happy to post this draft for open peer review. | |||
The questions raised here affect a wide range of scholarly processes. They impact publishing, of course, but also the ways scholarly work is assessed beyond the moment of publication, from hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions to funding applications, and the development of a scholarly reputation. The issues we discuss affect scholars at every stage in their careers, as well as publishers of journals and books of every sort, and administrators at many different kinds of institutions." | |||
(http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/open-review/) | |||
[[Category:Research]] | |||
Latest revision as of 18:29, 14 April 2013
See also our entry on Open Peer Review
Report
* Open Review: A Study of Contexts and Practices. MediaCommons and NYU Press, 2013.
URL = http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/open-review/ download
Description
"In April 2011, MediaCommons and NYU Press jointly received a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to support a year-long study of open review practices and possibilities. The document that follows is a draft of the white paper that will serve as the grant’s primary outcome. We are happy to post this draft for open peer review.
The questions raised here affect a wide range of scholarly processes. They impact publishing, of course, but also the ways scholarly work is assessed beyond the moment of publication, from hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions to funding applications, and the development of a scholarly reputation. The issues we discuss affect scholars at every stage in their careers, as well as publishers of journals and books of every sort, and administrators at many different kinds of institutions." (http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/open-review/)