Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the role of science and technology studies (STS) journal editors in organizing and maintaining the peer review economy. We specifically conceptualize peer review as a gift economy running on perpetually renewed experiences of mutual indebtedness among members of an intellectual community. While the peer review system is conventionally presented as self-regulating, we draw attention to its vulnerabilities and to the essential curating function of editors. Aside from inherent complexities, there are various shifts in the broader political–economic and sociotechnical organization of scholarly publishing that have recently made it more difficult for editors to organize robust cycles of gift exchange. This includes the increasing importance of journal metrics and associated changes in authorship practices; the growth and differentiation of the STS journal landscape; and changes in publishing funding models and the structure of the publishing market through which interactions among authors, editors, and reviewers are reconfigured. To maintain a functioning peer review economy in the face of numerous pressures, editors must balance contradictory imperatives: the need to triage intellectual production and rely on established cycles of gift exchange for efficiency, and the need to expand cycles of gift exchange to ensure the sustainability and diversity of the peer review economy.

Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: an analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities

“…A final comparative dimension under the same heading is whether innovations entail rewarding reviewers. The peer review system is sometimes conceptualized as a gift economy driven by perpetually renewed feelings of mutual indebtedness among members of academic communities (Kaltenbrunner et al, 2021). Yet, the invisibility of peer review labor also provides a powerful incentive against doing too much of it, and arguably ever more so in the context of career incentive systems that strongly emphasize publications.…”

“…Optionally, editors may manually invite additional reviewers. The reviewer pool resulting from the automated process far exceeds the social networks of any particular editor or even discipline, which usually constitute an "outer boundary" for reviewer recruitment in disciplinary gift economies (Kaltenbrunner et al, 2021). The effects of this strategy for the content of the review reports is unclear.…”

The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review

“…Traditionally, peer reviewers (and editors) work voluntarily (i.e., freely) for journals and publishers to conduct pre-publication peer review, as “useful slaves”, as Fernández-Cano [ 11 ] describes them, or as part of science’s “gift economy” [ 12 ]. The rationale for free labor (peer reviewing, which is actually equivalent to a professional consultation service) is that a reviewer serves the community (i.e., has communal obligations) and provides support to academia (i.e., reciprocity) [ 13 ].…”

“…For example, in a Wiley-published journal, Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility (BEER), a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) member publisher and journal, there is a clause 12 that still indicates a pilot or experimental program that involves Publons: "This journal is participating in a pilot on Peer Review Transparency and you have the choice to opt-out during the submission process. By submitting to this journal, you agree that the reviewer reports, their responses, and the editor's decision letter will be linked from the published article to where they appear on Publons in the case that the article is accepted.…”

Opening Up of Editorial Activities at Chemistry Journals. What Does Editorship Mean and What Does It Involve?

“…Although academics are quite talkative about their editorial work (Stang, 2003 ; Zedeck, 2008 ; Wise, 2018 ; Chibnik, 2020 ), there is little empirical work on editorship (Glonti et al, 2019 ). Even though a growing number of studies on peer reviewing focus on how publication decisions are taken (Fyfe et al, 2020 ; Kaltenbrunner et al, 2021 ), very few studies have examined the conditions of the editorial production of journals, and even less so of articles. A noteworthy exception is the ethnographic research carried out by Serge PJM Horbach at the editorial office of two large academic publishers (Horbach, 2020 ; Horbach and Halffman, 2020 ).…”