This chapter considers diversity broadly to mean a variety of perspectives, whether grounded in race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, socioeconomic status, or disciplinary study. It begins with a description of the current environment of scholarly communication, looking at the demographics and state of affairs in academia, publishing, and librarianship, including how biases present in all three fields affect scholarly communication. It then moves to a consideration of how librarians and library publishing programs can transform scholarly communication. By adopting a social justice perspective--actively working against ignorance and indifference to reduce systematic biases and injustice in academia, publishing, and librarianship- academic libraries can make their collections and products more reflective of the breadth of knowledge and experiences found in society and make their processes more welcoming to a diversity of participants.

An introduction to scholarly communication for sociology, intended to help sociologists in their careers, while advancing an inclusive, open, equitable, and sustainable scholarly knowledge ecosystem.

Coercive citation by peer reviewers.

This paper extends the scholarship on gender and scientific authorship by exploring women’s involvement in editorial decision-making. Prior to 1945, women scientists could submit their work to the journals of the Royal Society, but they were excluded from all editorial and evaluation roles: such gate-keeping roles were reserved for Fellows of the Society. We draw upon the Society’s archive to examine the experiences of female authors, referees, and communicators in the period after women were admitted to the Fellowship. We investigate the involvement of women in both anonymous roles (e.g. as referees), and in publicly visible positions of editorial responsibility (e.g. as communicators, and committee chairs). We reveal that women were better represented in both types of roles in the 1950s than in the 1970s and 1980s. These findings are pertinent to current debates about bias in the peer-review system, and the gendering of academic reward and recognition structures.

Nature - Until we study the social dynamics of review panels, assessments will be suboptimal, explains Gemma Derrick.

Scientific peer review has been a cornerstone of the scientific method since the 1600s. Debate continues regarding the merits of single-blind review, in which anonymous reviewers know the authors of a paper and their affiliations, compared with double-blind review, in which this information is hidden. We present an experimental study of this question. In computer science, research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals. Our study considers full-length submissions to the highly selective 2017 Web Search and Data Mining conference (15.6% acceptance rate). Each submission is simultaneously scored by two single-blind and two double-blind reviewers. Our analysis shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.

I get linked into a lot of thought-provoking debates about blinded peer review because of a post I wrote a couple…

Interrater reliability of peer review: basically shitty.

Approach allows reviewers to focus on the stuff they know best, speeds up process.

Peer review recognition company Publons is set to expand under new owners. Could this boost peer review and stop it being seen as an onerous, thankless task?

A recent hoax is the latest among many tests of peer review. What should we learn from it?

Heuristics beat judgment. EVERY DAMN TIME.

New papers were found through investigations into previous fraud.

Formalized beta reading.