Reviewing the gatekeepers: A survey of referees of library journals

Abstract

A survey of referees of scholarly journals in librarianship was conducted to gather information on referees' practices and attitudes, their perceptions of their role in the editorial process, and background information that might reveal relevant information on experience and qualifications for serving as a referee. One hundred ninety-nine surveys were mailed to referees and 121 responses were returned. The responses indicated that half the referees do not work with a formal evaluation criteria guideline but consistently regard validity of claims and originality as the two categories on which most emphasis is placed when reviewing a manuscript. Overwhelming support was expressed for returning comments to submitting authors but a curiously high number of referees do not know if this is the journal editor's practice. Furthermore, approximately 75% of the referees were uninformed by the editor of a reviewed manuscript's final disposition. The majority of referees for scholarly journals in librarianship are employed in academic libraries and schools of library and information science, hold a position of responsibility in a professional association and are successful in publishing articles In librarianship.In recent years, a number of studies examining scholarly journals have been conducted in the sciences, social sciences and humanities.These papers have addressed such things as the characteristics of authors of articles [I], rating the quality and readers' perceptions of scholarly journals [2], the place of the journal in the scholarly communication system [3] and the criteria for identifying a refereed journal (41. This is not surprising since journal publication is the primary method to disseminate scholarly information and research findings. Nevertheless, criticism and controversy surface frequently concerning selection methods for the journal literature prompting questions about this aspect of the process. For example, what sort of

Gatekeeping: A critical review

“…Similar to communication studies, information science is also rather fragmented, encompassing many different theories and meanings relating to gatekeeping. However, unlike communication, information science also borrowed some of its theories and vocabularies from other fields (the editorial gatekeeper from communication [Glogoff, 1988] and the technological gatekeeper from management [Allen, 1969; Wilkin, 1977]) and applied these concepts to information science. Examples include studying the editorial review process in academic journals (Glogoff, 1988) and investigating the role of the technological gatekeeper outside the R&D world, such as in the information technology profession or academia (Cronin, 1982; Klobas & McGill, 1995).…”

“…However, unlike communication, information science also borrowed some of its theories and vocabularies from other fields (the editorial gatekeeper from communication [Glogoff, 1988] and the technological gatekeeper from management [Allen, 1969; Wilkin, 1977]) and applied these concepts to information science. Examples include studying the editorial review process in academic journals (Glogoff, 1988) and investigating the role of the technological gatekeeper outside the R&D world, such as in the information technology profession or academia (Cronin, 1982; Klobas & McGill, 1995). Other variations on both managerial and communication concepts of gatekeeping were used in exploring the role of librarians as gatekeepers from a selection or intermediary perspective (Chamberlain, 1991; Sturges, 2001).…”

Reviewers' Views on Reviewing: An Examination of the Peer Review Process in Criminal Justice

“…As one critic comments, not only does the peer review process fail to provide high-quality, useful feedback for authors, but "The Achilles' heel of peer review is that referees usually know less than the author about the work under examination" (Henderson, 2001, p. 47). While difficult to objectively assess, this observation is supported by Glogoff (1988), who reports that approximately one-third of reviewers in information science claim they have been asked to review manuscripts outside of their areas of expertise.…”

“…Glogoff (1988) reports that data from a survey of 121 editorial board members of 31 journals show that reviewers rarely work with a standard set of criteria for evaluation, but instead focus on whether a manuscript appears to be original and makes valid claims.…”

Why Referees Reject Manuscripts

“…Surveys of referees, authors, and journal editors (Czyzewski & Dickinson, 1990;Glogoff, 1988;Gorman, 2000;Kassirer & Campion, 1994: McConnell, 2000Pierson, 2004: Straub et al, 1994, as well as editors' own reflections (Holschuh, 1998) from other fields of study offer some insights into quality issues affecting manuscripts. Contribution to knowledge, writing style, and the development of the theory or framework were cited most often by these authors.…”