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; 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

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  • do not cite unpublished work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Did the reviewer mean no outdated p-values?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.