Go back to article: Review: what should reviews do in an online journal? Towards a New Format
Opening the constraints of the format – who should create content?
Before we can consider what we want to include in the new review section, we need to think about how the content is created, curated and accessed. Do reviews need strict editorial control? Can we have new dynamics of content creation?
Public space to suggest what should be reviewed
Do we want to have an open section where any member of the public can suggest something to be reviewed? What should the mechanism for getting a review supported by the Journal be – number of votes, relevance of topic, editorial selection, etc.?
Should reviews which are inter or multi-disciplinary have more than one expert reviewer? Should this be encouraged as a working practice for reviews in general, or only on a case-by-case basis? Would multi-authors be optimal where there are several opinions surrounding the content that is being reviewed?
Expertise of the reviewer
In the context of a multi-disciplinary review section that incorporates practitioners and academics from different disciplines, what kind of reviewer expertise is desired by the readers? How important is the qualification/experience/scholarship of the author to readers of the review? Double-blind peer review is used for Journal articles to ensure a high standard of research, but do we want the review section to be more open? Or do we want reviews to be placed under the same scrutiny?
Component DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15180/170816/004