Open Access Options for Migration Studies

Today we’ve discussed open access options for migration studies. Here’s an attempt to provide an overview. In this list, a journal is “compliant” if it allows publishing a post-print within 6 months of publication on a non-profit or insitutional repository (green road). This includes fully open access journals. Payments in hybrid journals are not considered compliant. Information on compliance as of 31 October 2019, taken from http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php; impact factors as listed on the journal websites, SJR from Scimago. All information is provided without warranty.

You may also consider peer-review experiences on https://scirev.org/

I am not covering disciplinary journals here (e.g. Social Inclusion, Sociological Science, Politics and Governance, Research & Politics, or the innovative OLH). Don’t hesitate to mention ommissions and errors in the comments.

How to blind your manuscript

I come across this ever so often when doing a review, and there are even journal guidelines giving bad advice on how to blind a manuscript for double-blind peer review.

A good guide can be found here at Oxford Univeristiy Press.

What gets me every time is violations of this:

Do not employ (Author 2016) and similar devices.

While it may look like a good way to anonymize, it actually encourages guessing who the author may be more than anything I know. Often it provides good clues, especially if we can read the titles in the reference list. The funny thing is that as a reviewer, typically I do not want to know who you are (at least not until I have completed the review).

The guidelines cited above are pretty clear:

  • do cite yourself if it is relevant
  • use appendices/supplements to describe methodology
  • do not use (Author 2019)
  • do not cite unpublished work

ORCID Reviewer

I am still waiting for someone to explain me the point of Publons, when I’m starting to get frustrated with academic bean counting. I’ve just submitted a review where I had to declare no conflict of interest, whether I want to have my review acknowledged on Publons, whether I want to have my review acknowledged on ORCID, whether I want to have my name printed in the list of reviewers in the journal, … really?

not statistical

I wanted to share this gem:

There were no real statistical tests presented and discussed in the paper. We don’t know whether the differences are significant.

Did the reviewer mean no outdated p-values? Well spotted! That discussion of the substantive meaning of the coefficients and those credibility intervals — apparently not spotted.

Image: CC-by Chase Elliott Clark

Elsevier Certificate of Outstanding Contribution in Reviewing

Today I was awarded a Certificate of Outstanding Contribution in Reviewing for reviews I’ve undertaken last year. To be honest, my first reaction was a bit cynical (I didn’t know about the programme)… I mean what else will they think of next to motivate reviewers? Shouldn’t it be a natural thing to do reviews — something we’re intrinsically motivated to do in our quest for better science? I mean we already get to routinely choose if I want to brag about our reviewing on Publons these days (oh, hang on, are these competing services?). I then came across an explanation of these certificates by Elsevier. I learned that they have been around for 5 years now, and that the editors get to choose 25 awardees! Now this no longer feels so hollow.