The vital importance of being open: reflections on peer reviewing in scholarly publishing

References

• Albrecht, M., Halonen, M., & Syssner, J. (2022). Depopulation and shrinkage in a northern context: Geographical perspectives, spatial processes, and policies. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 200(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.122933
   Google Scholar
• Bagelman, J. (2018). Who hosts a politics of welcome? – commentary to Gill. Fennia, 196(1), 108–110.
   Google Scholar
• Batterbury, S. (2017). Socially just publishing: Implications for geographers and their journals. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 195(2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.66910
   Google Scholar
• Finn, J. C., Peet, R., Mollett, S., & Lauermann, J. (2017). Reclaiming value from academic labor: Commentary by the editors of human geography. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 195(2), 182–184. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.66683
   Google Scholar
• Fregonese, S. (2017). English: Lingua Franca or disenfranchising? Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 195(2), 194–196. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.67662
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inch, A. (2018). The timely return of the repressed – commentary to Walton. Fennia, 196(1), 99–102.
   Google Scholar
• Jana, S. (2019). A history and development of peer-review process. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66(4), 152–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. R. H. (2017). Can research quality be measured quantitatively? On quality of scholarship, numerical research indicators and academic publishing – Experiences from Norway. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 195(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.66602
   Google Scholar
• Kallio, K. P. (2020). Lessons in the art of scientific editing. Space and Polity, 24(2), 283–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2020.1787134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallio, K. P., & Riding, J. (2018). Dialogical peer-review and non-profit open-access journal publishing: Welcome to Fennia. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 196(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.70470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., Waltman, L., Woods, H. B., & Brumberg, J. (2022). Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: An analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities. Journal of Documentation, 78(7), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2022-0022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorimer, H. (2019). Dear departed: Writing the lifeworlds of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 44(2), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFarlane-Morris, S. (2020). Combating the shocks of the ’unplayful’ field. Alone! – commentary to Taylor. Fennia, 198(1-2), 214–216.
   Google Scholar
• Philo, C., Hurst, M., Laurie, E., & Thomas, R. (2022). ‘In the critical department’: Refreshing the Scottish Geographical Journal. Scottish Geographical Journal, 138(1-2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2022.2082515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pia, A. E., & Zerilli, F. (2022). Food sovereignty as a model for scholar-led open access publishing. The LSE Blog: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/10/24/food-sovereignty-as-a-model-for-scholar-led-open-access-publishing/.
   Google Scholar
• Puehringer, S., Rath, J., & Griesebner, T. (2021). The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinsfelder, T. L., & Pike, C. A. (2018). Using library funds to support open access publishing through crowdfunding: Going beyond article processing charges. Collection Management, 48(2), doi:10.1080/01462679.2017.1415826
   Google Scholar
• Ruez, D. (2017). Evaluating otherwise: Hierarchies and opportunities in publishing practices. Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 195(2), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.66884
   Google Scholar
• Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Springer, S., Houssay-Holzschuch, M., Villegas, C., & Gahman, L. (2017). Say ‘yes!’ to peer review: Open access publishing and the need for mutual aid in academia. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 195(2), 185–188. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.66862
   Google Scholar
• Tulumello, S. (2019). Generalization, epistemology and concrete: What can social sciences learn from the common sense of engineers. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 197(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.77626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox, C. (2019). Rude paper reviewers are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study finds. ScienceInsider. https://www.science.org/content/article/rude-paper-reviews-are-pervasive-and-sometimes-harmfulstudyfinds#:∼:text = Such%20unprofessional%20conduct%20is%20so%20pervasive%20there%27s%20even,impacts%2C%20especially%20on%20authors%20belonging%20to%20marginalized%20groups.
   Google Scholar