I've been invited to write a review for an arts journal that is 'refereed'. I'll probably go for it anyway, as I'm quite new to this stuff and am sure it's all good experience, but just for clarification, can anyone tell me the difference between this and peer-reviewed (for instance)?

Thanks :p

Hi Ubu, a review is bascially an overview of the main research developments/ideas in your field - i.e. the state of current research discussing topics such as the history of the reseach, the ideas which gave rise to it, the developments/advancements, any problems and what can be done to tackle them with suggestions for improvements and further research (e.g. the research direction of the field and any new ideas).

A peer-reviewed paper is one where relevant academics (your peers) have commented on a paper submitted to a journal and given suggestions for improvements before it is accepted for publication. Though sometimes it is possible to get a paper submitted without having to make any changes - this depends on who you get reviewing your papers.

Congrats on the invitation - it's a good way to get your name out there. They'll be citing it in no time .... Ubu (2010) says .... 8-)

Hi Ubu,
I'm fairly certain "peer-reviewed" and "refereed" are the same thing, at least they are in my field. The papers submitted have to be "reviewed/refereed" and approved by other academics working in that field, before the journal will publish them, Doodles already gave a good explanation. So yes, congratulations, that's a great opportunity! (up)

Aww, thanks guys. Not quite as amazing as Doodles suggests - it' an art review, for an art journal, but pretty cool nonetheless. (up)