Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen

Krüger, Anne K.; Hesselmann, Felicitas; Hartstein, Judith

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-31549-8_5

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, however, editorial management systems as digital infrastructures transform that process by defining sequences, ends, values and evaluation criteria, which are inscribed already in the production process of such devices (see Krüger et al, 2021 ). These values and criteria can, for instance, be captured by studying aims and means of the patent ( Plotkin, 2009 ) which serves as the technological basis for the editorial management system from our investigation.…”

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The focus of the patent is on how to facilitate the peer review process in a digital infrastructure. We aim to compare empirical process generated data with this idealized process provided with the patent, because the processual data reflect local adaptations and uses of these technologies emerging from concrete demands of authors, reviewers and editors in the configurations of a journal ( Horbach and Halffman, 2019 , p.2), but are at the same time also constrained by the initial definition of roles and processes set up by the developers of the technology ( Krüger et al, 2021 ). While these technical adaptations reflect the processual or organizational demands, they may also create novel arenas for monitoring and control neither foreseen by the developers nor by organizational professionals of peer review work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

Hartstein

Blümel

2021

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many journals now rely on editorial management systems, which are supposed to support the administration and decision making of editors, while aiming at making the process of communication faster and more transparent to both reviewers and authors. Yet, little is known about how these infrastructures support, stabilize, transform or change existing editorial practices. Research suggests that editorial management systems as digital infrastructures are adapted to the local needs at scholarly journals and reflect main realms of activities. Recently, it has been established that in a minimal case, the peer review process is comprised of postulation, consultation, decision and administration. By exploring process generated data from a publisher’s editorial management system, we investigate the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the different realms of the process of peer review. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. We do so by making use of the internal representation of manuscript life cycles from submission to decision for 14,000 manuscripts submitted to a biomedical publisher. Reconstructing the processes applying social network analysis, we found that the individual steps in the process have no strict order, other than could be expected with regard to the software patent. However, patterns can be observed, as to which stages manuscripts are most likely to go through in an ordered fashion. We also found the different realms of the peer review process represented in the system, some events, however, indicate that the infrastructure offers more control and observation of the peer review process, thereby strengthening the editorial role in the governance of peer review while at the same time the infrastructure oversees the editors’ performance.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

Hartstein

Blümel

2021

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Das sichtbare Publikum?

Sutter

Wehner

2023

Das Sichtbare Publikum?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Creating Interpretative Spaces in and with Digital Infrastructures: How Editors Select Reviewers at a Biomedical Publisher

Hesselmann,

Hartstein

2024

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital infrastructures, such as editorial management systems (EMS), play a crucial role in academic publishing. However, despite their ubiquity, they have received surprisingly little analytical attention. Here, we investigate how EMSs are employed in practice and contribute to editorial evaluations. Conducting a case study of a biomedical publisher, we investigate the selection of peer reviewers by editors, using both qualitative and quantitative data. When looking at how interactions between editors and the digital infrastructures unfold, we observed three analytically different types of interaction: (1) editors and infrastructure jointly accomplish the acceleration of peer review, (2) editors mitigate the infrastructure when establishing a collective memory, and (3) editors disengage from the infrastructure when they evaluate potential reviewers. Through strategic disengagement from and mitigation of the infrastructures, editors create interpretative spaces for themselves. This way, most of the interpretative and evaluative work still remains in the domain of the human editorial staff. Our results furthermore highlight the importance of the specific spatial, social, organizational, and cultural conditions of the editorial office for editors’ ability to modulate their engagement with the infrastructures, create interpretative spaces, and shape infrastructural effects.

show abstract

Bewertung in und durch digitale Infrastrukturen

Cited by 3 publications

References 56 publications

Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure — Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System

Das sichtbare Publikum?

Creating Interpretative Spaces in and with Digital Infrastructures: How Editors Select Reviewers at a Biomedical Publisher

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About