[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: How many (peer reveiwed) journals are there?
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: How many (peer reveiwed) journals are there?
- From: "Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:10:05 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
I agree with Robert Richards: the trouble with Ulrich's is that it's publisher-completed Some (especially in non-English speaking countries) don't know of its existence Some don't update their entries And it's entirely dependent on the judgement of the person completing the entry as to how they categorise the journal; there is no definition of 'peer-reviewed', and there are no checks. Many journals (including the one I edit - and major 'hybrid' journals such as BMJ, for that matter) have peer review for some content (e.g. research articles) but not for other less scholarly items. But as Robert says, there is no 'standard' for peer review anyway; Irene Hames' book on the subject is probably the closest; perhaps this is something on which the publishing industry and the scholarly and library communities could usefully work together? Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Email: firstname.lastname@example.org