next »

[anon23]

On how to describe the source and nature of one's publications, I always find it confusing: what is the difference between refereed and peer-review? Is "refereed" only used for journals, and peer-reviewed for conference volumes, etc., which also undergo a review and revision system? and can the two terms be used interchangeably? Any difference in their usage between US and Europe?

[stapler]

In my experience, most people use these terms interchangeably (I'm in the US).  In my particular field of the sciences, truly refereed or peer-reviewed contributions would in almost all cases be restricted to research articles in journals.  Contributions to conference volumes would only be considered "peer reviewed" in my field if they came out as a special issue of an established journal.  Yes, technically even a conference abstract goes through peer review (somebody has to accept / reject it), but in my field the term usually implies detailed and rigorous examination with subsequent revision by the authors.

I imagine that other disciplines likely have different rules as to what these terms really mean.

[case_insensitive]

Peer-reviewed (and refereed) means your work was reviewed by your peers (usually at least 2 or 3 of them in addition to the editor or associate editor).  It is possible that conference proceedings could be peer-reviewed, some are and some are not.  It is also possible that book chapters could be peer reviewed, though most might not be.

In my field, peer-reviewed journal articles are the be all end all.  Yours may be different, of course.