AAUP Handbook: Best Practices for Peer Review

AAUP offers this handbook of Best Practices in Peer Review as a resource for member publishers, acquisitions editors both new and experienced, faculty editorial boards, scholarly authors and researchers, and new scholarly publishing programs. The Best Practices handbook was developed by the Association’s Acquisition Editorial Committee through a consensus-building two-year process to articulate a set of practices that comprise a rigorous process of peer review. The Committee has rightly noted that, “the peer review process is highly complex, involves many individuals, and must be responsive to the norms of the appropriate fields.” Disciplinary expectations, administrative procedures, inter-disciplinary and creative works, and innovative publishing formats may all demand changes in approach. However, wellreasoned differences in practices can only be evaluated against a solid understanding of what constitutes a standard practice of high-quality peer review. 2015-16 AAUP Acquisitions Editorial Committee: Mick Gusinde-Duffy, Georgia (chair); Mary Elizabeth Braun, Oregon State; Catherine Cocks, Iowa; Mary C. Francis, Michigan; Christie Henry, Chicago; Micah Kleit, Temple; Philip Leventhal, Columbia; Gita Manaktala, MIT; Matt McAdam, Johns Hopkin

AAUP Handbook: Best Practices for Peer Review

AAUP offers this handbook of Best Practices in Peer Review as a resource for member publishers, acquisitions editors both new and experienced, faculty editorial boards, scholarly authors and researchers, and new scholarly publishing programs. The Best Practices handbook was developed by the Association’s Acquisition Editorial Committee through a consensus-building two-year process to articulate a set of practices that comprise a rigorous process of peer review. The Committee has rightly noted that, “the peer review process is highly complex, involves many individuals, and must be responsive to the norms of the appropriate fields.” Disciplinary expectations, administrative procedures, inter-disciplinary and creative works, and innovative publishing formats may all demand changes in approach. However, wellreasoned differences in practices can only be evaluated against a solid understanding of what constitutes a standard practice of high-quality peer review. 2015-16 AAUP Acquisitions Editorial Committee: Mick Gusinde-Duffy, Georgia (chair); Mary Elizabeth Braun, Oregon State; Catherine Cocks, Iowa; Mary C. Francis, Michigan; Christie Henry, Chicago; Micah Kleit, Temple; Philip Leventhal, Columbia; Gita Manaktala, MIT; Matt McAdam, Johns Hopkin

The poverty of journal publishing

The article opens with a critical analysis of the dominant business model of for-profit, academic publishing, arguing that the extraordinarily high profits of the big publishers are dependent upon a double appropriation that exploits both academic labour and universities’ financial resources. Against this model, we outline four possible responses: the further development of open access repositories, a fair trade model of publishing regulation, a renaissance of the university presses, and, finally, a move away from private, for-profit publishing companies toward autonomous journal publishing by editorial boards and academic associations. </jats:p

Shared governance in the modern university

A governance model is developed in which university governance is shared between the academic and governing bodies and is coordinated by the university executive. Viewing the university as a professional service organisation, and noting the importance of developing a flexible culture within a shifting, marketised external environment, it is argued that a degree of shared governance is necessary for the success of the modern university. Although the discussion is couched largely within the context and evolution of UK university governance over the past sixty years, it also draws on the US evidence and experience and the conclusions drawn are general