The first section of this paper examines the accuracy of the two major periodical directories, Ulrich's (UL) and Serials Directory (SD), in identifying scholarly and peer-reviewed journals. There were significant discrepancies found between SD and UL. A similar difference was also found between SD and journal-provided information, while UL closely reflected journal-provided information. The second section looks at the differences and similarities in the peer-review process across 18 disciplines. Seventy-four percent of the journals used editors and outside experts as reviewers. Single-blind peer review was used by 37% of the journals, 58% employed double-blind, and 5% made use of open reviews.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Bachand03
%A Bachand, Robert G.
%A Sawallis, Pamela P.
%D 2003
%J The Serials Librarian
%K Zeitschrift bewertung editoriale_praxis gelesen
%N 2
%P 39-61
%T Accuracy in the identification of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines
%V 45
%X The first section of this paper examines the accuracy of the two major periodical directories, Ulrich's (UL) and Serials Directory (SD), in identifying scholarly and peer-reviewed journals. There were significant discrepancies found between SD and UL. A similar difference was also found between SD and journal-provided information, while UL closely reflected journal-provided information. The second section looks at the differences and similarities in the peer-review process across 18 disciplines. Seventy-four percent of the journals used editors and outside experts as reviewers. Single-blind peer review was used by 37% of the journals, 58% employed double-blind, and 5% made use of open reviews.
@article{Bachand03,
abstract = {The first section of this paper examines the accuracy of the two major periodical directories, Ulrich's (UL) and Serials Directory (SD), in identifying scholarly and peer-reviewed journals. There were significant discrepancies found between SD and UL. A similar difference was also found between SD and journal-provided information, while UL closely reflected journal-provided information. The second section looks at the differences and similarities in the peer-review process across 18 disciplines. Seventy-four percent of the journals used editors and outside experts as reviewers. Single-blind peer review was used by 37% of the journals, 58% employed double-blind, and 5% made use of open reviews.},
added-at = {2007-10-12T14:51:47.000+0200},
author = {Bachand, Robert G. and Sawallis, Pamela P.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/295e658fc8363dc65c672f6ed45ab028b/wdees},
interhash = {e9f5eb1de4f4f3446302301ad918c5c6},
intrahash = {95e658fc8363dc65c672f6ed45ab028b},
journal = {The Serials Librarian},
keywords = {Zeitschrift bewertung editoriale_praxis gelesen},
number = 2,
pages = {39-61},
timestamp = {2008-06-17T13:26:00.000+0200},
title = {Accuracy in the identification of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines},
volume = 45,
year = 2003
}