Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography
In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Curr...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Aarhus University
2015-03-01
|
| Series: | Hermes |
| Online Access: | https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/view/22950 |
| _version_ | 1818151725117210624 |
|---|---|
| author | Henning Bergenholtz Rufus Gouws |
| author_facet | Henning Bergenholtz Rufus Gouws |
| author_sort | Henning Bergenholtz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T13:43:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a88ee0761d5045f89c5cddba02fa4e6e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0904-1699 1903-1785 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T13:43:23Z |
| publishDate | 2015-03-01 |
| publisher | Aarhus University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Hermes |
| spelling | doaj.art-a88ee0761d5045f89c5cddba02fa4e6e2022-12-22T01:04:40ZdeuAarhus UniversityHermes0904-16991903-17852015-03-01275410.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22950Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in LexicographyHenning Bergenholtz0Rufus Gouws1Centre for Lexicography Department of Business Communication Aarhus BSS, Aarhus UniversityDepartment of Afrikaans and Dutch University of Stellenbosch In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author. https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/view/22950 |
| spellingShingle | Henning Bergenholtz Rufus Gouws Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography Hermes |
| title | Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography |
| title_full | Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography |
| title_fullStr | Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography |
| title_full_unstemmed | Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography |
| title_short | Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography |
| title_sort | proposals for the writing of peer reviews in lexicography |
| url | https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/view/22950 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT henningbergenholtz proposalsforthewritingofpeerreviewsinlexicography AT rufusgouws proposalsforthewritingofpeerreviewsinlexicography |