职业化的同行评议:一个更合乎道德和教学的评议过程的建议

IF 1.2 4区管理学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Scholarly Publishing Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.3138/JSP.50.4.02

Nick J. Sciullo, M. Duncan

{"title":"职业化的同行评议:一个更合乎道德和教学的评议过程的建议","authors":"Nick J. Sciullo, M. Duncan","doi":"10.3138/JSP.50.4.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Several major problems with peer review exist in the related humanities disciplines of rhetoric, communication, and composition studies: a preponderance of incompetent reviewers, a lack of constructive criticism and the maintenance of orthodoxy, relative ease in identifying blinded authors, editorial passivity, and long waits to receive reviews. We propose five solutions: training for reviewers and editors, reviewers signing their reviews, payment for reviewers, thirty-day review turnaround, and guidelines for reviewing promoted by collective action. Before such solutions could be implemented, however, the existing problems must be acknowledged.","PeriodicalId":44613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","volume":"538 1","pages":"248 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Professionalizing Peer Review: Suggestions for a More Ethical and Pedagogical Review Process\",\"authors\":\"Nick J. Sciullo, M. Duncan\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/JSP.50.4.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Several major problems with peer review exist in the related humanities disciplines of rhetoric, communication, and composition studies: a preponderance of incompetent reviewers, a lack of constructive criticism and the maintenance of orthodoxy, relative ease in identifying blinded authors, editorial passivity, and long waits to receive reviews. We propose five solutions: training for reviewers and editors, reviewers signing their reviews, payment for reviewers, thirty-day review turnaround, and guidelines for reviewing promoted by collective action. Before such solutions could be implemented, however, the existing problems must be acknowledged.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Scholarly Publishing\",\"volume\":\"538 1\",\"pages\":\"248 - 264\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Scholarly Publishing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.50.4.02\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/JSP.50.4.02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

摘要

摘要:在修辞学、传播学和作文研究等相关人文学科中，同行评议存在以下几个主要问题:不称职的评议者居多，缺乏建设性的批评和对正统的维护，相对容易识别盲目作者，编辑被动，等待评审时间过长。我们提出了五种解决方案:对审稿人和编辑的培训，审稿人在审稿上签名，审稿人的报酬，三十天的审稿周期，以及通过集体行动促进审稿的指导方针。但是，在执行这种解决办法之前，必须承认存在的问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Professionalizing Peer Review: Suggestions for a More Ethical and Pedagogical Review Process

Abstract:Several major problems with peer review exist in the related humanities disciplines of rhetoric, communication, and composition studies: a preponderance of incompetent reviewers, a lack of constructive criticism and the maintenance of orthodoxy, relative ease in identifying blinded authors, editorial passivity, and long waits to receive reviews. We propose five solutions: training for reviewers and editors, reviewers signing their reviews, payment for reviewers, thirty-day review turnaround, and guidelines for reviewing promoted by collective action. Before such solutions could be implemented, however, the existing problems must be acknowledged.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Scholarly Publishing Multiple-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

15.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： For more than 40 years, the Journal of Scholarly Publishing has been the authoritative voice of academic publishing. The journal combines philosophical analysis with practical advice and aspires to explain, argue, discuss, and question the large collection of new topics that continually arise in the publishing field. JSP has also examined the future of scholarly publishing, scholarship on the web, digitization, copyright, editorial policies, computer applications, marketing, and pricing models. It is the indispensable resource for academics and publishers that addresses the new challenges resulting from changes in technology and funding and from innovations in production and publishing.