Must We All Be Beholden to Peer Review? On the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Law Review Model for Rhetorical Scholarship

Sciullo, Nick J.

doi:10.1080/15358593.2015.1044019

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Students serve as editors of school-based law journals, for example, and they also review submitted manuscripts. Yet law reviews are repositories for significant scholarly work of exacting standards (Sciullo, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice

Caputo

2018

Families in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author argues for the centrality of peer review in assessing the scholarly merits of manuscripts, given considerable changes in the publication landscape that present formidable challenges for editors to solicit qualified reviewers, and seeks to convince reluctant senior faculty and scholarly practitioners to review manuscripts in their areas of expertise, contending in effect that we have a professional obligation to do so.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice

Caputo

2018

Families in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this way, committee members are gatekeepers to achieving significant milestones in the academy. Likewise, peer-reviewers are gatekeepers to publications – or the successful creation of “legitimate/valued” knowledge (Roberts & Shambrook, 2012; Sciullo, 2015). Peer-reviewed publications are essential to earning tenure and being considered an expert in the field.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

It Could Be Us: Black Faculty as “Threats” on the Path to Tenure

Carter

Craig

2022

Race and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Racial disparities in tenure and promotion outcomes are well known in the existing research literature. Scholarship establishes that Black and Brown faculty experience unique challenges when navigating the tenure and promotion process, such as lack of diverse mentorship, biased student/peer evaluations, and disproportionately high service demands. However, the public has entered this discourse due to recent media attention involving the tenure cases of Nikole Hannah-Jones and Cornel West, and this has prompted minoritized faculty nationwide to reflect on the implications of these incidents on their own careers. This study relies on theoretical and conceptual literature to discuss the professional realities Black faculty face on the job. We make the theoretical claim that the racial threat hypothesis can facilitate understanding of how Black faculty pursuing tenure is a political threat to white hegemony in the academy resulting in an increase of social control. We conclude with concrete recommendations on how Black scholars can wield the label of “threat” to successfully navigate the academy.

show abstract

“…Like in other disciplines, peer review in the law domain entails no institutional recognition or reward in terms of academic appointments and promotion. Various studies show that peer review is slow and inefficient, expensive, ineffective (in detecting errors, plagiarism, and fraudulent research), biased, opaque, easily abused, unreliable, and without incentive ( Godlee, Gale, and Martyn, 1998 ; Wager and Jefferson, 2001 ; Bornmann, Nast, and Daniel, 2008 ; Birukou et al, 2011 ; Yarkoni, 2012 ; Lee et al, 2013 ; Nguyen et al, 2015 ; Sciullo, 2015 ; Walker and Rocha da Silva, 2015 ; Garrido-Gallego, 2018 ; Knöchelmann et al, 2019; Ross-Hellauer and Derrick, 2019 ). Many of these shortcomings fall into the domain of publishing ethics and can be overcome with greater transparency of the peer review process, including open peer review ( Heeks, 2011 ; Pöschl, 2012 ; Hachani, 2015 ; Nosek et al, 2015 ; Schmidt et al, 2018 ; Wolfram et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Publishing in peer-reviewed journals not only benefits researchers for their professional advancement but also improves the image of academic institutions and disciplines, as scholars generally believe that peer-reviewed journals produce quality science ( Sciullo, 2015 ). However, whether the legal community retains editorial review (including student review) as the prevailing evaluation model, replaces it with peer review, or develops its own model based on the strengths of both, the transparency of manuscript evaluation will play a key role in improving the quality of legal scholarship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review in Law Journals

Stojanovski

Casado

Agnoloni

et al. 2021

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer’s competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as “Peer review ethics”, “Reviewer”, “Transparency of identities”, “Publication type”, and “Research misconduct”. Spanish journals favor reviewers’ “Independence” and “Competence” and “Anonymized” peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

show abstract

Must We All Be Beholden to Peer Review? On the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Law Review Model for Rhetorical Scholarship

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice

Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of Professional Scholarly Practice

It Could Be Us: Black Faculty as “Threats” on the Path to Tenure

Peer Review in Law Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About