Comments on: What peer review should be

By: Peter Shoemaekr

Peter Shoemaekr — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:46:30 +0000

I think we need to make a distinction between “feedback” and “candid assessment of quality.” It’s clear to me that the *feedback* to the *authors* in the process described here is more valuable than most of the feedback that comes out of peer review. But editors of journals also want to know whether an article is innovative, original, smart, well-written. etc. Quite simply, they want to know whether the article is something that they should publish. The same is true for search committees, who want to know who to hire, or tenure committees, who want to know whether to give someone a job for life.

I’m not saying that the current peer-review system is perfect, just that there is a point to anonymity. It may lend itself to abuses, but it encourages a certain kind of candor as well.

By: Erin O'Connor

Erin O'Connor — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:54:49 +0000

David — I agree with you whole-heartedly.

By: david foster

david foster — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:42:42 +0000

“peer reviewers need the freedom from reprisal”…but the very anonymity that protects the *reviewers* from reprisal allows costless reprisals against the *author* of the article. Should this have been obvious in the first place?

Seems to me that a more open review process, conducted on-line, should result in the publishing of the resultant article in on-line form, with access available to all either free or at a nominal charge. I do not understand what academic, social, or economic purpose is served by the continued existence of very expensive academic journals with very limited circulations. (Other than, of course, the financial well-being of the owners and employees of such journals.) It is extremely irritating to see a reference to an interesting-looking piece of academic research and find that it is available only by paying $35 or so for a single access to the journal in which it appears. Particularly when the research in question is partially or wholly tax-supported.

By: conservativeEnglishPhD

conservativeEnglishPhD — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:12:25 +0000

My experience with peer review has been very odd. Of course, I don’t expect publication on my first few submissions, and I hope for good comments that will help me revise. Of the few manuscripts I’ve gotten back, here are the observations I’ve had:

1. I can tell who has done the review. There are only a handful of scholars in my particular sub-field, so it’s pretty easy to figure out who did your review. Also, because of this (there’s really only one conference that covers the field, with a couple of others that cross over with it sometimes), I think it’s pretty clear the scholars know who is writing the articles if the writer is an established academic. And frankly, some of the articles by “Established” academics I’ve seen are rather terrible, so clearly their articles were approved by the same people rejecting mine.

2. The comments are usually too brief and indicate they likely only read a few pages at random. One person criticized me for not justifying my theoretical approach, ignoring the several pages I dedicated to justifying my approach. Another said that their research disagreed with my conclusions, so I clearly hadn’t thought the matter through enough (but if I had agreed, I bet they would have said it was redundant and didn’t need to be published).

3. However, I did have, in one case, a very, very good and thorough response. Interestingly, that scholar identified himself in the comments, mainly because I was relying a lot on his work. But his comments were excellent and indicated real engagement on his part with my article. So it can work, when academics are not concerned with protecting their turf.