Peer review, scholarship and editors of scientific publications: the death of scientific knowledge in Africa

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Koers Pub Date : 2018-10-10 DOI:10.19108/KOERS.83.1.2314
M. Sebola
{"title":"Peer review, scholarship and editors of scientific publications: the death of scientific knowledge in Africa","authors":"M. Sebola","doi":"10.19108/KOERS.83.1.2314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that the manner in which the scholarship peer review as a process of scientific quality is conducted and perceived in the editorial arena is a cause of insufficient knowledge production in Africa and developing countries. Arguments still persist that the developing countries such as Africa contribute at least 1.25% of the world knowledge production. This paper does not aim to support the idea that the peer review process of scholarship in the publication of scientific material is unnecessary, but argues that the manner of using it to judge scholarship quality is often flawed in many academic publications. This paper uses an analytical approach from literature sources to argue that the usage of peer review without considering the complex process affecting peer review will result in the death of knowledge in the academic enterprise of developing countries such as Africa. This paper concludes that only if editors of scientific publishing can conduct peer reviews in an ethical manner without biasedly directing knowledge, knowledge generation will increase to solve economic problems in Africa.","PeriodicalId":38057,"journal":{"name":"Koers","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Koers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.83.1.2314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper argues that the manner in which the scholarship peer review as a process of scientific quality is conducted and perceived in the editorial arena is a cause of insufficient knowledge production in Africa and developing countries. Arguments still persist that the developing countries such as Africa contribute at least 1.25% of the world knowledge production. This paper does not aim to support the idea that the peer review process of scholarship in the publication of scientific material is unnecessary, but argues that the manner of using it to judge scholarship quality is often flawed in many academic publications. This paper uses an analytical approach from literature sources to argue that the usage of peer review without considering the complex process affecting peer review will result in the death of knowledge in the academic enterprise of developing countries such as Africa. This paper concludes that only if editors of scientific publishing can conduct peer reviews in an ethical manner without biasedly directing knowledge, knowledge generation will increase to solve economic problems in Africa.
同行评议、学术研究和科学出版物编辑:科学知识在非洲的死亡
本文认为,在编辑领域进行和理解作为科学质量过程的奖学金同行评议的方式是非洲和发展中国家知识生产不足的一个原因。人们仍然坚持认为,非洲等发展中国家至少贡献了世界知识生产的1.25%。本文的目的不是支持在科学材料出版中没有必要对奖学金进行同行评议的观点,而是认为在许多学术出版物中,使用同行评议来判断奖学金质量的方式往往存在缺陷。本文采用文献资料分析的方法,认为在不考虑影响同行评议的复杂过程的情况下使用同行评议将导致非洲等发展中国家学术事业中的知识死亡。这篇论文的结论是,只有科学出版的编辑能够以道德的方式进行同行评议,而不带有偏见地指导知识,知识的产生才会增加,从而解决非洲的经济问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Koers
Koers Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信