<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/peer_review</link>
<title>PennTags Feed for /tag/peer_review</title>
<description>PennTags Feed</description>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/43732</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/43732</link>
<title>News: Breakthrough on Open Access - Inside Higher Ed</title>
<description/></item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/43708</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/43708</link>
<title>News: Peer Review Failure? - Inside Higher Ed</title>
<description/></item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/39461</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/39461</link>
<title> The 'Black Box' of Peer Review</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Mich&amp;egrave;le Lamont decided to explore excellence by studying one of the primary mechanisms used by higher education to -- in theory -- reward excellence: scholarly peer review. Applying sociological and other disciplinary approaches to her study, Lamont won the right to observe peer review panels that are normally closed to all outsiders. And she was able to interview peer review panelists before and after their meetings, examine notes of reviewers before and after decision-making meetings, and gain access to information on the outcomes of these decisions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The result is How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press), which aims to expose what goes on behind the closed doors where funds are allocated and careers can be made.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/38585</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/38585</link>
<title>Biomed Central Blog: The re-review opt-out experiment in Journal of Biology</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;As of this month, Journal of Biology initiates a 're-review opt-out scheme' whereby once authors have revised their paper in response to peer review it is their choice whether the reviewers see it again. The experiment was inspired by the widespread frustration with current peer review practices and is strongly supported by a majority of the Editorial Board of the journal.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/32686</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/32686</link>
<title> Announcing Initial Implementation Timeline for Enhancing Peer Review</title>
<description/></item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/32328</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/32328</link>
<title>New Test for Bias in Peer Review :: Inside Higher Ed</title>
<description/></item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/31644</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/31644</link>
<title>ShortPeerReviewGuide.pdf (application/pdf Object)</title>
<description/></item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/31462</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/31462</link>
<title>Sociologists Discuss Ideas for Improving Peer Review - Chronicle.com</title>
<description/></item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/31352</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/31352</link>
<title>Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system b</title></item></channel></rss>
