少做同行评议的理由

IF 2.9 1区社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Environment and Planning D-Society & Space Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1177/02637758221142339

Kate Derickson

{"title":"少做同行评议的理由","authors":"Kate Derickson","doi":"10.1177/02637758221142339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increasingly fraying nature of the peer review process is well known to anyone partic-ipating in it. Editors are finding that they have to ask four or five people to secure one commitment to review, while prospective reviewers are finding themselves overwhelmed by requests that they struggle to fit into already unmanageable workloads. From my vantage point","PeriodicalId":48303,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space","volume":"115 1","pages":"963 - 966"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The case for doing less in our peer reviews\",\"authors\":\"Kate Derickson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02637758221142339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The increasingly fraying nature of the peer review process is well known to anyone partic-ipating in it. Editors are finding that they have to ask four or five people to secure one commitment to review, while prospective reviewers are finding themselves overwhelmed by requests that they struggle to fit into already unmanageable workloads. From my vantage point\",\"PeriodicalId\":48303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space\",\"volume\":\"115 1\",\"pages\":\"963 - 966\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758221142339\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning D-Society & Space","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758221142339","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

同行评审过程日益磨损的本质对任何参与其中的人来说都是众所周知的。编辑们发现，他们必须请四到五个人来保证一个审稿承诺，而潜在的审稿人发现自己被请求压垮了，他们努力适应已经难以管理的工作量。从我的角度来看

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The case for doing less in our peer reviews

The increasingly fraying nature of the peer review process is well known to anyone partic-ipating in it. Editors are finding that they have to ask four or five people to secure one commitment to review, while prospective reviewers are finding themselves overwhelmed by requests that they struggle to fit into already unmanageable workloads. From my vantage point

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Environment and Planning D-Society & Space Multiple-

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

2.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： EPD: Society and Space is an international, interdisciplinary scholarly and political project. Through both a peer reviewed journal and an editor reviewed companion website, we publish articles, essays, interviews, forums, and book reviews that examine social struggles over access to and control of space, place, territory, region, and resources. We seek contributions that investigate and challenge the ways that modes and systems of power, difference and oppression differentially shape lives, and how those modes and systems are resisted, subverted and reworked. We welcome work that is empirically engaged and furthers a range of critical epistemological approaches, that pushes conceptual boundaries and puts theory to work in innovative ways, and that consciously navigates the fraught politics of knowledge production within and beyond the academy.