Peer Review: Fetishes, Fallacies, and Perceptions

Abstract

The key to a successful program of scholarly book publishing lies with the knowledge, creativity, and drive of the commissioning (acquisitions) editor. Peer review is a useful tool for testing and confirming the editor's judgment and arguing the case for publication, but the role of peer review alone can often be overrated. Too many funding and appointment systems are based on a fetishised image of this concept. Despite the debates and changing perceptions about scholarly books, it is editorial excellence that underlies the quality and importance of a list. While journals rely more on the formal process of peer review, the role of the entrepreneurial journal editor also remains important to scholarly communication.

On Peer Review as the ‘Gold Standard’ in Measuring Research Excellence: From Secrecy to Openness?

“…So with peer review a high stakes activity for all academics, it merits interrogation––not least with respect to its fallibility and the need to question the intentions and consequences of its secrecy in the current audit climate. This is particularly urgent if we, as an academic community, are to avoid peer review further infiltrating funding and appointment systems ‘based on a fetishised image of this concept’ (Derricourt, , p. 137), in which, following secretive peer review, the identities and reputations of academic labourers may be shaped.…”

“…In this vein, most authors of academic papers submitted to journals in the hope of publication are able to contribute to a collective narrative in which our experiences range from illuminating, constructive peer reviews that may result in revision enhancements and ultimate publication, to grumpy dismissal with minimal feedback or doctrinaire refusal to read a paper on its own merits. Fair and sensible decisions by editorial teams can ameliorate the worst of such tendencies, with experienced and principled editors exercising careful judgement in managing and acting on peer reviews (Derricourt, ).…”

Writing Transitional Justice: An Empirical Evaluation of Transitional Justice Scholarship in Academic Journals

“…Quality is most often determined by utilizing a peer review process where a judgement is made about the appropriateness of methodology, analysis, and interpretation. Questions have been raised about the effectiveness and objectivity of this method, which characterizes the practice of scientific, social, and humanities periodicals (Derricourt 2012;Verleysen and Engels 2013). As described by Meho in an assessment of the current state of citation analysis, there are other potential confounders in evaluating impact (Meho 2007).…”

A label for peer‐reviewed books

“…Furthermore, the organization of the PR process may be in the hands of the publisher, an academic board, a series editor, or the book editor. In sum, PR of books is less formalized than is journal peer review (Derricourt, ).…”

“…Regardless of this divergence in formalization of PR, universities worldwide require their faculty to publish peer‐reviewed work (Derricourt, ). Governments, for their part, increasingly install performance‐based research funding systems (PRFS) in which peer‐reviewed publications are an important factor (Hicks, ).…”