From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review

Biagioli, Mario

doi:10.1080/1045722022000003435

Cited by 153 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We call this period the primordial time of peer review ( Figure 1), but note that the term “peer review” was not formally used then. Biagioli (2002) described in detail the gradual differentiation of peer review from book censorship, and the role that state licensing and censorship systems played in 16th century Europe; a period when monographs were the primary mode of communication. Several years after the Royal Society of London (1660) was established, it created its own in-house journal, Philosophical Transactions .…”

Section: 01 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

Section: 01 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Danas se zvanično smatra da je recenziranje radova uvelo Kraljevsko društvo iz Edinburga, koje je 1731. godine izdalo zbornik recenziranih radova iz oblasti medicine [25][26][27]. Sve do sredine dvadesetog veka primenjivalo se "unutrašnje" recenziranje.…”

Section: Analiza Procesa Recenziranjaunclassified

How to review a scientific paper

Dekanski¹,

Drvenica²,

Nedić³

2017

Zas Mat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20 Guston (2003) realises that "researchers rely less and less on regular research funds from their universities and more on external research grants that are allocated on the basis of peer review." 21 After the Second World War (at first most probably in the United States) "peer review became the process for allocating research funds" 22 (Biagioli, 2002). Nearly all facets of the traditional scholarly communication depend on the quality estimations by peer reviewers.…”

Section: Quality Control Through Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%