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

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
A. Hoffman
{"title":"A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication","authors":"A. Hoffman","doi":"10.1177/17470161211051230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"84 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211051230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

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.
对同行评议过程的适度建议:学术交流评估中的合作和跨学科方法
传统的同行评议过程(TPR)的目的是为学术研究提供更具建设性和科学严谨的批判性评议,从而在不同学科中建立科学的严谨性和有效性。同行评议受到了批评,因为在各种竞争性期刊上发表论文的需求显著增加,而愿意并有资格进行彻底评议的个人数量却显著减少。这篇主题文章的目的是检查同行评审过程的整体功效,并为更加协作、透明(即“开放”)和跨学科的交流过程提供建议。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 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