---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:36:46 -0000
From: Sally Morris <sec-gen@ALPSP.ORG>
Subject: Re: Refereed vs. Academic Scholarly

Sorry to reply only when you've all moved on from this topic.

There does not seem to be any hard and fast guidance anywhere at the moment
on what constitutes 'properly conducted' peer review.   Our Association,
together with the European Association of Science Editors, is therefore
sponsoring publication of a booklet containing guidelines on good practice
for peer review (focusing on the sciences).  All going well, it should be
published in Spring 2003.

Sally

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Black" <blacks@MAIL.STROSE.EDU>
To: <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Refereed vs. Academic Scholarly

> Nancy,
>
>   My understanding is that the data in the Serials Directory is
> self-reported by the editors and publishers of the journals.  The data is
> only as good as the information provided.  I interpret "peer-reviewed" and
> "refereed" as synonymous, but that doesn't mean every editor and publisher
> considers them to be the same.
>
>   However, a journal can be scholarly without being peer-reviewed.  The
> example you use, Adolescence, "relies for its contents mainly on solicited
> material".  The front matter does ask for duplicate copies to be
> submitted, but is silent on whether the articles go through peer review.
> But the articles are certainly what I would call scholarly.
>
>   For library instruction purposes, what I find difficult to explain are
> scholarly journals that do not have works cited.  As a general rule of
> thumb, one can tell patrons that scholarly articles have works cited.
> But there are exceptions.  For example, Foreign Affairs is scholarly, but
> the well-informed opinion pieces that make up most of the journal don't
> have works cited. It is listed in the peer-reviewed index in the Serials
> Directory, though.
>
>   So, there are ambiguities (welcome to serials librarianship!), and the
> data in EBSCO and Ulrich won't be 100% accurate, because it is
> self-reported by the publishers.
>
> Steve Black
> Reference, Instruction, and Serials Librarian
> Neil Hellman Library
> The College of Saint Rose
> 392 Western Ave.
> Albany, NY 12203
> (518) 458-5494
> blacks@mail.strose.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
> [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Nancy Crow
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Refereed vs. Academic Scholarly
>
> We are having an ongoing discussion on what is peer-reviewed and what is
> scholarly publications.  Is there any definitive definitions of types of
> serials.
>
> Ulrich's (page x of the 2000 38th ed.) seems to indicate that refereed and
> peer reviewed are one and the same.  Also, it says that "Omission of title
> from the index" in vol. 5 of Ulrich's "does not mean that the journal is
> not peer-reviewed."  Some titles, such as Adolescence, are listed as
> scholar/academic publication in the title listing in Ulrich's, but are not
> listed in the Refereed Section of Ulrich's vol. 5.
>
> Searching of  EBSCOHost databases can be limited to peer-reviewed
journals,
> but these sometime vary from Ulrich's.  This is confusing to a fairly new
> serials librarian.  Please help.
>
> Nancy Crow, Assistant Librarian
> Serials/Interlibrary Loan
> Quincy University
> 1800 College Ave.
> Quincy, IL  62301-2699
> crowna@quincy.edu