A Social Epistemological Inquiry into Biases in Journal Peer Review

Jukola, Saana

doi:10.1162/posc_a_00237

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of peer review is usually construed in terms of quality control. For example, Katzav and Vaesen ([2017], p. 6) write, 'The epistemic role of peer review is assessing the quality of research', and this seems to be a common sentiment per (Eisenhart [2002], p. 241) and (Jukola [2017], p. 125). But how well does peer review succeed in its purpose of quality control?…”

Section: Setting the Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas philosophers have investigated various aspects of the social structure of science, there has been surprisingly little reflection on peer review in particular. Most of what exists has focused on the role of biases in peer review; see, for example, (Lee [2012]; Lee et al [2013]; Saul [2013], Section 2.1; Jukola [2017]; Katzav and Vaesen [2017]; Heesen [2018a]). Only very occasionally have philosophers turned to discussing the strengths and weaknesses of peer review as such.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?

Heesen¹,

Bright²

2021

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive or neutral. We conclude that on present evidence abolishing peer review weakly dominates the status quo.

show abstract

Section: Setting the Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?

Heesen¹,

Bright²

2021

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One important discussion point, however, is whether it is desirable that nonscientists differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed literature in terms of credibility. Even though the peer-review system leads to improvements of a manuscript (Carneiro et al, 2019;Godlee et al, 1998;Goodman et al, 1994;Schroter et al, 2004), it also has serious drawbacks (Heesen & Bright, 2019;Huisman & Smits, 2017;Jukola, 2017), and one might argue that preprints are not necessarily less credible than peerreviewed articles. Nevertheless, we deem it important to explain peer-review and preprints to non-scientists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles

Wingen¹,

Berkessel²,

Dohle³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of research findings are initially published as preprints, a development fueled by the COVID-19 crisis. Preprints are not peer-reviewed and thus did not undergo the established scientific quality control process. Many researchers hence worry that these preprints reach non-scientists, such as practitioners, journalists, and policymakers, who might be unable to differentiate them from the peer-reviewed literature. Across 5 studies in Germany and the US, we investigated whether this concern is warranted and whether this problem can be solved by providing non-scientists with a brief explanation of preprints and the peer-review process. Studies 1 and 2 showed that without an explanation, non-scientists perceive research findings published as preprints as equally credible as findings published as peer-reviewed articles. However, an explanation of the peer-review process reduces the credibility of preprints (studies 3 and 4). In study 5, we developed and tested a shortened version of this explanation which we recommend adding to preprints. This explanation again allowed non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and the peer-reviewed literature. This effect was mediated by the perception of preprints’ quality control and their perceived adherence to publication standards. In sum, our research demonstrates that even a short explanation of the concept of preprints and their lack of peer-review allows non-scientists who evaluate scientific findings to adjust their credibility perception accordingly. This would allow harvesting the benefits of preprints, such as faster and more accessible science communication while reducing concerns about public overconfidence in the presented findings.

show abstract

“…Some authors believe that the peer review system that allows the validation of scientific work is in question (Atkinson, 1994 ; Jukola, 2017 ) while others see that the reproducibility and replicability of scientific results are almost impossible (Nosek & Errington, 2020 ). Still, others think that science communication and outreach to the general public are characterized by hype and sensationalist headlines (Bjørkdahl & Carlsen, 2017 ; Dumas-Mallet, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science, misinformation and digital technology during the Covid-19 pandemic

Astobiza

2021

HPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three interdependent factors are behind the current Covid-19 pandemic distorted narrative: (1) science´s culture of “publish or perish”, (2) misinformation spread by traditional media and social digital media and (3) distrust of technology for tracing contacts and its privacy-related issues. In this short paper, I wish to tackle how these three factors have added up to give rise to a negative public understanding of science in times of a health crisis, such as the current Covid-19 pandemic and finally, how to confront all these problems.

show abstract

A Social Epistemological Inquiry into Biases in Journal Peer Review

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?

Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles

Science, misinformation and digital technology during the Covid-19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About