Publishing review reports to reveal and preserve the quality and fairness of the peer review process

IF 2.6 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
M. Seeber, M. Klemenčič, M. Meoli, Cristina Sin
{"title":"Publishing review reports to reveal and preserve the quality and fairness of the peer review process","authors":"M. Seeber, M. Klemenčič, M. Meoli, Cristina Sin","doi":"10.1080/21568235.2023.2192549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peer review has several known limitations, but it is still an important and central institution in modern science (Seeber 2022): findings that have not faced the test of peer review are seen as unreliable, while works that have passed the scrutiny of peer review assume a sort ‘truth’ status (Baldwin 2018). Peer review is therefore adopted by academic outlets as the legitimate way to select scientific contributions (Lamont 2009), and to guarantee the quality of the research published and the credibility of scientific claims (Warren 2003; Bornmann 2008; Kalleberg 2012). It is commonly assumed that the establishment of peer review occurred with the first example of peer review, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665 (National Academy of Science 1995). However, despite a common belief that peer review has always been a central, immutable institution of modern science, the institutionalization of peer review is a much more recent phenomenon (Fyfe et al. 2020). Only in the second half of the twentieth century, did editors begin to rely systematically on external referees to cope with the increasing size and specialization of scientific production (Burnham 1990; Baldwin 2018). Over time, peer review adopted different forms to respond to priorities and necessities of the scientific community. For instance, peer review was initially single blind, meaning that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, while reviewers know the identity of the authors. In the 70s, sociology journals started to adopt a double-blind peer review, whereby authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity. This choice was driven by the universalism norm of Science (Merton 1973), which prescribes that scientific claims should be subjected to the same ‘pre-established impersonal criteria’, regardless of their source and not affected by the reputation and prestige of its authors or their institutions of affiliation. In computer science, the prime channel of communication is conferences, rather than journals, and reviewers are not selected by an editor: instead, conference chair members act as reviewers and choose which paper they wish to review (Seeber and Bacchelli 2017).","PeriodicalId":37345,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Higher Education","volume":"35 1","pages":"121 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2192549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Peer review has several known limitations, but it is still an important and central institution in modern science (Seeber 2022): findings that have not faced the test of peer review are seen as unreliable, while works that have passed the scrutiny of peer review assume a sort ‘truth’ status (Baldwin 2018). Peer review is therefore adopted by academic outlets as the legitimate way to select scientific contributions (Lamont 2009), and to guarantee the quality of the research published and the credibility of scientific claims (Warren 2003; Bornmann 2008; Kalleberg 2012). It is commonly assumed that the establishment of peer review occurred with the first example of peer review, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665 (National Academy of Science 1995). However, despite a common belief that peer review has always been a central, immutable institution of modern science, the institutionalization of peer review is a much more recent phenomenon (Fyfe et al. 2020). Only in the second half of the twentieth century, did editors begin to rely systematically on external referees to cope with the increasing size and specialization of scientific production (Burnham 1990; Baldwin 2018). Over time, peer review adopted different forms to respond to priorities and necessities of the scientific community. For instance, peer review was initially single blind, meaning that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, while reviewers know the identity of the authors. In the 70s, sociology journals started to adopt a double-blind peer review, whereby authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity. This choice was driven by the universalism norm of Science (Merton 1973), which prescribes that scientific claims should be subjected to the same ‘pre-established impersonal criteria’, regardless of their source and not affected by the reputation and prestige of its authors or their institutions of affiliation. In computer science, the prime channel of communication is conferences, rather than journals, and reviewers are not selected by an editor: instead, conference chair members act as reviewers and choose which paper they wish to review (Seeber and Bacchelli 2017).
发布评审报告,以揭示和维护同行评审过程的质量和公平性
同行评议有几个已知的局限性,但它仍然是现代科学中的一个重要和核心制度(Seeber 2022):没有经过同行评议检验的发现被认为是不可靠的,而通过同行评议审查的作品则具有某种“真理”地位(Baldwin 2018)。因此,同行评议被学术机构作为选择科学贡献的合法方式(Lamont 2009),并保证已发表研究的质量和科学主张的可信度(Warren 2003;Bornmann 2008;Kalleberg 2012)。人们通常认为,同行评议的建立始于1665年的《皇家学会哲学汇刊》(美国国家科学院1995年),这是同行评议的第一个例子。然而,尽管人们普遍认为同行评议一直是现代科学的核心、不可改变的制度,但同行评议的制度化是最近才出现的现象(Fyfe et al. 2020)。直到20世纪下半叶,编辑才开始系统地依靠外部审稿人来应对科学生产规模和专业化的不断增长(Burnham 1990;鲍德温2018)。随着时间的推移,同行评议采用了不同的形式来回应科学界的优先事项和需要。例如,同行评审最初是单盲的,这意味着作者不知道审稿人的身份,而审稿人知道作者的身份。20世纪70年代,社会学期刊开始采用双盲同行评议,即作者和评议人不知道彼此的身份。这种选择是由科学的普遍主义规范(Merton 1973)推动的,它规定科学主张应该服从相同的“预先建立的非个人标准”,无论其来源如何,也不受其作者或其所属机构的声誉和声望的影响。在计算机科学领域,主要的沟通渠道是会议,而不是期刊,审稿人不是由编辑选择的:相反,会议主席成员作为审稿人,选择他们希望审查的论文(Seeber and Bacchelli 2017)。
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
European Journal of Higher Education
European Journal of Higher Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Higher Education (EJHE) aims to offer comprehensive coverage of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of higher education, analyses of European and national higher education reforms and processes, and European comparative studies or comparisons between European and non-European higher education systems and institutions. Building on the successful legacy of its predecessor, Higher Education in Europe, EJHE is establishing itself as one of the flagship journals in the study of higher education and specifically in study of European higher education.
×
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