Is peer review in academic publishing still working?

Jackson, Liz; Peters, Michael A.; Benadé, Leon; Devine, Nesta; Arndt, Sonja; Forster, Daniella; Gibbons, Andrew; Grierson, Elizabeth; Jandrić, Petar; Lăzăroiu, George; Locke, Kirsten; Mihăilă, Ramona; Stewart, Georgina; Tesař, Marek; Roberts, Peter; Ozoliņš, Jānis Tālivaldis

doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1479139

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pointing to the centrality of peer review in academic publishing, Jackson et al . (, p. 95) observe that it ‘is seldom acknowledged publicly as a normal part of academic work’. Focussed on that academic work with respect to forms of anonymised pre‐ and post‐publication peer review, we provide an account of understandings of peer review and its importance.…”

Section: The Peer Reviewer As Academic Labourermentioning

confidence: 99%

On Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’ in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?

Enslin¹,

Hedge²

2018

Journal of Philosophy of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As universities in the United Kingdom gear themselves up for the next Research Excellence Framework, REF2021, with peer review at its core, we critically re‐visit the idea of peer review as a gold standard proxy for research excellence. We question the premise that anonymous peer review is a necessary and enabling condition for impartial, expert judgement. We argue that the intentions and supposed benefits underlying peer review and its associated concepts have become congealed in received discourse about research quality. Hence we explore the key conceptual issues raised by the nested assumptions and concepts that come into play in peer review as currently practised: primarily those of secrecy, anonymity, legitimacy, trust, impartiality and openness. After delineating the benefits attributed to peer review, we contrast its declared virtues with its problematic features. We locate peer review in an audit culture in which the reviewer is an academic labourer. Drawing on recent trends in moral and political philosophy, we question the usefulness of the ideal of impartiality when tied to secrecy. Then we raise more deliberative, intersubjective possibilities for a revised understanding of peer review in the context of an academic community. Finally, we suggest ways in which the academic community could pursue quality in research by recasting peer review to be less secret and more open.

show abstract

Section: The Peer Reviewer As Academic Labourermentioning

confidence: 99%

On Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’ in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?

Enslin¹,

Hedge²

2018

Journal of Philosophy of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jackson's collective snapshot is a powerful piece of writing which captures the mood of 2020 in the USA and Canada. Jackson has led a number of collective research and writing projects including those that were influential in thinking about peer reviews (see for example Jackson et al, 2018). Similarly, it is important to note that the project of Philosophy of Education in a New Key has proven to be a very productive way to generate geographical responses to the question of the role of philosophy of education in 2020 (see for instance Hung et al, 2020;Jandric et al, 2020;Papastephanou et al, 2020;Waghid et al, 2020).…”

Section: Philosophy Of a Snapshot 2020: View From Troubled Landsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophy of education in a new key: Snapshot 2020 from the United States and Canada

Jackson

Alston

Bialystok

et al. 2020

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article shares reflections from members of the community of philosophers of education in the United States and Canada who were invited to express their insights in response to the theme 'Snapshot 2020', and the question 'Where do you see philosophy of education, moving into the future?' This collective writing experiment was inspired by and organized as part of a larger project of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) and its journal Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT), to capture scholars' voices around the world regarding major issues impacting the field at this moment (see Peters et al., 2020). While each of the authors of this article has a distinctive view, personal and professional, writing collectively signifies a form of solidarity, as it traces an intentional commitment to a larger communitynot just fellow academics, but the public as wellwhile it can also serve as a response to academic norms 'to count and rank all research and teaching activities in individualist and competitive terms as a basis for performance culture and assessment' (Peters et al., 2020, p. 2). As in a piece similarly composed by the PESA Executive, the result is akin to a cadence, as diverse ideas and serial understanding can be expressed through this process, sharing a vivid snapshot, or perhaps many snapshots all in one frame, of the field and community today (Peters et al., 2020; see also Jandric et al., 2017). Experiments take place in contexts. PESA initially imagined this project in a different world, before COVID was recognized as a worldwide pandemic. When I asked my colleagues, mostly based in the United States and Canada, to take part in this exercise, COVID was beginning to take its toll there. This was just before academic and political life there was further jolted by CONTACT Marek Tesar

show abstract

“…The education of open peer-reviewing Liz Jackson, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong While some argue that regular peer review practices can result in needless humiliation (Comer & Schwartz, 2014), open peer review can better exemplify the values of peer review as a form of pedagogy (Jackson et al, 2018). As a form of pedagogy, peer-reviewing can be educational and instructive to both reviewers and authors.…”

Section: Beyond Critique Is Machinic Creation: Open Peer Review As Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the concerns of anonymous peer reviewing is that a reviewer can lose sight of care and trust within their role, overlooking their duty, perhaps sometimes unintentionally, to act in the best interests of an author and of a scholarly field (Jackson et al, 2018). In such cases, an author is more likely to be affronted by reviewers' comments, casting the whole process as negative.…”

Section: Beyond Critique Is Machinic Creation: Open Peer Review As Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT)

Peters

Brighouse²,

Tesař

et al. 2020

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?

Cited by 28 publications

References 25 publications

On Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’ in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?

On Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’ in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?

Philosophy of education in a new key: Snapshot 2020 from the United States and Canada

The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About