期刊论文详细信息
Research Integrity and Peer Review
The limitations to our understanding of peer review
Tony Ross-Hellauer1  Jonathan P. Tennant2 
[1] Graz University of Technology & Know Center GmbH, Graz, Austria;Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education, Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia;
关键词: Peer review studies;    Quality control;    Quality assurance;    Scholarly communication;    Open peer review;    Scholarly publishing;    Reproducibility;    Research impact;   
DOI  :  10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
来源: Springer
PDF
【 摘 要 】

Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   

【 预 览 】
附件列表
Files Size Format View
RO202104274781134ZK.pdf 492KB PDF download
  文献评价指标  
  下载次数:16次 浏览次数:5次