Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry
Peer review is the process by which submissions to journals and presses are evaluated with regard to suitability for publication. Armed with the results of numerous empirical studies, critics have leveled a variety of harsh charges against peer review such as: reviewers and editors are biased toward authors from prestigious institutions, peer review is biased toward established ideas, and it does a poor job of detecting errors and fraud. While an immense literature has sprouted on peer review in the sciences and social sciences, Peer Review is the first book-length, wide-ranging study of peer review that utilizes methods and resources of contemporary philosophy. Its six chapters cover the following topics: the tension between peer review and the liberal notion that truth emerges when ideas proliferate in the marketplace of ideas; arguments for and against blind review of submissions; the alleged conservatism of peer review; the anomalous nature of book reviewing; the status of non-peer-reviewed publications, such as invited articles or Internet publications, in tenure and promotion cases; and the future of peer review in the age of the Internet. The author has also included several key readings about peer review.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Peer Review and the Marketplace of Ideas
Bias and Anonymity in the Peer Review Process
Is Peer Review Inherently Conservative? Should It Be?
Peerless Review The Strange Case of Book Reviews
What Should Count?
Where Do We Go from Here? Peer Review in the Age of the Internet
Why Be My Colleagues Keeper? Moral Justifications for Peer Review
The Fate of Published Articles Submitted Again
The Case against Blind Submission
Fish on Blind Submission
Reply to Skoblow
The Invisible Hand of Peer Review
About the Author
Ethics and Manuscript Reviewing
academic accepted ad hominem Alvin Goldman anonymous argue authors believe better biases blind review blind submission book reviews chapter claim conservatism criticism David Horrobin editor electronic eliminate Engineering Ethics epistemic Ethics evaluation expect favor field Fish Ginsparg Goldman Harnad ideas inductive argument Information Ethics innovative papers institutions Internet invited issue journal review judge judgment justify lished literature manuscript marketplace conception Matthew effect merit negative obligation one's open peer open peer commentary open review paradigm Paul Ginsparg Peer Commentary peer review peer review system percent Philosophical position practice prestigious problem produce professional promotion psychology publication Publication Bias quality control question readers reason referee's referees rejection rates reports response resubmitted Scholarly Publishing scholars Scientific scientists Social someone standards Stanley Fish Stevan submitted suggest tenure theory tion truth unblinded University Press unrefereed W. V. O. Quine