Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965

Abstract

This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel data set derived from the Royal Society's archives and covering 1865-1965, that is, the historical period in which refereeing (not yet known as peer review) became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society's editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, the society was able to establish an equilibrium of number of submissions per reviewer that was relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that the distribution of editorial work was significantly uneven. Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the

No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic

“…Scholars from Science and Technology Studies, have for decades been occupied in how credit is distributed true publishing and review practices, as well as examining consistency across journals and reviewers ( Peters and Ceci 1982 ; Biagioli 2002 ). More recently, these endeavours have also included studies on the economic and commercial aspects of the publishing industry, including specific interest in novel business models created by open access schemes ( Mirowski 2018 ; Fyfe et al. 2020 ), and the role of digital technologies in transforming publishing and review practices ( Bohlin 2004 ; Walker and Rocha da Silva 2015 ).…”

Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?

“…Practices to evaluate the quality of articles submitted to scholarly journals have always been varied and contentious. Even though peer review is nowadays often presented as a universal gold standard guaranteeing the epistemic reliability of published work, the wide-spread use of referees by research journals is in fact relatively new (Fyfe et al 2015(Fyfe et al , 2019Baldwin 2015;Csiszar 2018). Systematic use of referees to evaluate submitted work was only introduced in learned societies in the early 19th century.…”

“…Systematic use of referees to evaluate submitted work was only introduced in learned societies in the early 19th century. Deep into the 20th century, the use of referees by journal editors was still considered optional (Fyfe et al 2015(Fyfe et al , 2019Csiszar 2016). The term "peer review" itself is a neologism that only became common in the 1970s (Baldwin 2015(Baldwin , 2018.…”

Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports

“…Most journals rely on peer review to ensure that the papers they publish are of a certain quality, but there are concerns that peer review suffers from a number of shortcomings ( Grimaldo et al, 2018 ; Fyfe et al, 2020 ). These include gender bias, and other less obvious forms of bias, such as more favourable reviews for articles with positive findings, articles by authors from prestigious institutions, or articles by authors from the same country as the reviewer ( Haffar et al, 2019 ; Lee et al, 2013 ; Resnik and Elmore, 2016 ).…”