scholarly journals A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication

2021 ◽  
pp. 174701612110512
Author(s):  
August John Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Interdisciplinary Communication ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Scientific Rigor ◽  
Modest Proposal ◽  
Number Of Individuals

The purpose of the traditional peer review process (TPR) is to provide a more constructive and scientifically rigorous critical review of scholarly research that builds scientific rigor and validity within diverse academic disciplines. Peer review has received criticism as the demand for publications in a variety of competitive journals has significantly increased while the number of individuals who are both willing and qualified to conduct thorough reviews is significantly declining. The purpose of this topic piece is to examine the overall efficacy of the peer review process and provide recommendations toward a more collaborative, transparent (i.e. “open”), and interdisciplinary communication process.

scholarly journals Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Severin ◽  
Joanna Chataway
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Topic Guide ◽  
Stakeholder Expectations ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Decision Making Tool

Background: Depending upon their relationship with the process, stakeholders might have diverging or even conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how different stakeholder groups across academic disciplines perceive peer review and what they expect from it. Methods: We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early-, mid- and senior career scholars, reviewers, editors and publishers. We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach and used a semi-structured topic guide to moderate discussions. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholders expected peer review (i) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (ii) to conduct quality control, (iii) to improve manuscripts, (iv) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journals and its readership, (v) to provide a decision-making tool for editors, (vi) to provide feedback by peers, (vii) to curate a community and (viii) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles. Stakeholder groups with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in their understanding of and the value they attached to different functions of peer review. Some stakeholder expectations are contradictory, revealing a tension between formative functions and summative functions of peer review. Conclusions: Stakeholder expectations towards peer review are profoundly shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

Academic knowledge production and prefigurative politics

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Beatriz P. Lorente
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Characteristic ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Means And Ends ◽  
Sociology Of Language ◽  
Prefigurative Politics ◽  
Access Model

Abstract Inequality is the pervasive structural characteristic of academic knowledge production. To dismantle this inequality, the challenge raised by prefigurative politics which is based on an ethos of congruence between means and ends must be taken up by the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. The IJSL’s peer review process, its academic conventions and its access model can potentially be spaces for concrete practices that prefigure parity in academic knowledge production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document