Kairos uses a three-stage review process. First, editors decide if a submission makes sense for a review. Then, the entire editorial board discusses the submission (online) for two weeks, and reaches a consensus that is communicated to the author with detailed letters from the board. (Board members’ identities are public, so there is no secrecy about who reviews pieces.) Then, if appropriate, someone is assigned to work with the author to coach him or her on how to improve the piece prior to publication.
As Ball described the process, thousands of words are written about submissions, and lengthy discussions take place — all to figure out the best content for the journal. But there are no secret reviewers, and the coaching process allows for a collaborative effort to prepare a final version, not someone guessing about how to handle a “revise and resubmit” letter. —Humanities scholars consider the role of peer review | Inside Higher Ed.
Humanities scholars consider the role of peer review | Inside Higher Ed
Microsoft is once again asking Chrome users to try Bing through unblockable pop-ups
Interesting use of A.I. in a radiology journal
NASA Communicates with Ailing Voyager 1 Spacecraft
Looks like somebody’s webmaster accidentally preloaded a headline that would be easy to ed...
My colleague @crissycp offers warm soda bread and tea every year, as part of her authentic...
What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living