Editorial Note FQS Reviews: Editorial Work is "Communication Work"
AbstractEditorial Notes provide a view "behind the scenes" of FQS Reviews, reporting and describing the editorial process. The first topic in this Editorial Note focuses on changes in the way reviewers are found. As FQS Reviews began we preferred finding reviewers by posting on different listservs to inform others about review copies of books and other media. In the next phase of FQS Reviews—aside from postings—we attempted to establish a core of authors who would exclusively write reviews. The second topic describes an analyses of 131 archived files (first drafts) of reviews published in FQS and the analyses of the e-mail contacts between the reviewers and the editorial team which accompany the peer review process. One result of our analyses is that the quality of a review is independent from way the reviewer was recruited (postings on listservs or established core reviewer); no significant differences can be seen between the two groups (reviewers found via listservs or established reviewers). More, important, however, is the intensive "communication work" between editors and reviewers—a necessary communication to guarantee standardization and maintenance of quality. This is critical as our focus is on the review as a "unique contribution" within the research community. To give an insight into the intensive communication work an anonymous case study of a "failed" review is included. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040115
Copyright (c) 2004 Günter Mey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.