Publication question

[trueDJ]

I'm having trouble categorizing a particular ENT publication. Should a chapter in "Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery" be considered a:

1. Peer reviewed book chapter
2. Peer reviewed journal article
3. Other article

Thanks for your input!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[resxn]

I'm having trouble categorizing a particular ENT publication. Should a chapter in "Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery" be considered a:

1. Peer reviewed book chapter
2. Peer reviewed journal article
3. Other article

Thanks for your input!

That journal is peer reviewed, so by definition, it should be classified as #2

 

[hopefulent]

Similar question:
On ERAS, what's the best way to list a book chapter that is only submitted (i.e. not in print)? "Peer-reviewed book chapter" and "Other article" do have a spot to list that it's not in print yet. Any ideas?

 

[trueDJ]

Thanks Resxn for your helpful reply, as usual!

 

[neutropeniaboy]

That journal is peer reviewed, so by definition, it should be classified as #2

I'm not so sure it is. I have written no less than 3 articles for the journal, and either they all have been accepted without revision necessary or there is no true peer review. The guest editor reviews the article, but I don't think there is a true review performed by peers not contributing to the edition.

 

[DrBodacious]

I was just looking over the local flaps volume today. The front of the journal lists the names of 20+ people on the editorial board. I can't say how it fits in the scope of journal impact, but it's definately peer reviewed.

 

[resxn]

I'm not so sure it is. I have written no less than 3 articles for the journal, and either they all have been accepted without revision necessary or there is no true peer review. The guest editor reviews the article, but I don't think there is a true review performed by peers not contributing to the edition.

Interesting. I have 1 article in there and it was reviewed and asked for revision before acceptance. Perhaps I'm not as trustworthy as NPB.

Regardless, I think it fits more with #1 than #3 with my experience. I don't think anyone is going to jump down your throat if you put #1, but some researcher jerk attending might. Just blame it on one of your attendings who said to label it that way if they do rip on you. Easy out. Blame it on your internet attending, Dr. Resxn, even though Dr. NPB said not to.