The limitations to our understanding of peer review
- PDF / 492,712 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 97 Downloads / 209 Views
(2020) 5:6
Research Integrity and Peer Review
REVIEW
Open Access
The limitations to our understanding of peer review Jonathan P. Tennant1ˆ
and Tony Ross-Hellauer2*
Abstract Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review. Keywords: Peer review studies, Quality control, Quality assurance, Scholarly communication, Open peer review, Scholarly publishing, Reproducibility, Research impact
Introduction Peer review is a ubiquitous element of scholarly research quality assurance and assessment. It forms a critical part of a research and development enterprise that annually invests $2 trillion US dollars (USD) globally [1] and produces more than 3 million peerreviewed research articles [2]. As an institutional norm governing scientific legitimacy, it plays a central role in defining the hierarchical structure of higher education and academia [3]. Now, publication of peer-reviewed journal articles plays a pivotal role in research careers, conferring academic prestige and scholarly legitimacy upon research and individuals [4]. In spite of this crucial role it plays, peer review * Correspondence: [email protected] ˆJonathan P. Tennant is deceased. 2 Graz University of Technology & Know Center GmbH, Graz, Austria Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
remains critically poorly understood in its function and efficacy, yet almost universally highly regarded [5–11]. As a core component of our immense scholarship system, peer review is routinely and widely criticised [12– 14]. Much ink has been spilled on highly cited and widely circulated editorials either criticising or championing peer review [15–21]. A number of small- to medium-scale pop
Data Loading...
