Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review

Lipworth, Wendy; Kerridge, Ian

doi:10.1080/02691728.2010.534567

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Often, publication venues design their peer‐review process and the policies around it to better serve the goals of the system as a whole, while still being considerate of the different interests of the parties involved. Policy decisions could be affected by the power structure within a research community (Lipworth & Kerridge, ) and by the various goals that the publication venue tries to achieve, including earning a reputation for quality by attracting the best articles and the best reviewers. Usually the policies include rules for whether the identities of each type of stakeholder will be known to other stakeholders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Policy decisions could be affected by the power structure within a research community (Lipworth & Kerridge, 2011) and by the various goals that the publication venue tries to achieve, including earning a reputation for quality by attracting the best articles and the best reviewers. Usually the policies include rules for whether the identities of each type of stakeholder will be known to other stakeholders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

Nobarany

Booth

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design of peer‐review support systems is shaped by the policies that define and govern the process of peer review. An important component of these are policies that deal with anonymity: The rules that govern the concealment and transparency of information related to identities of the various stakeholders (authors, reviewers, editors, and others) involved in the peer‐review process. Anonymity policies have been a subject of debate for several decades within scholarly communities. Because of widespread criticism of traditional peer‐review processes, a variety of new peer‐review processes have emerged that manage the trade‐offs between disclosure and concealment of identities in different ways. Based on an analysis of policies and guidelines for authors and reviewers provided by publication venues, we developed a framework for understanding how disclosure and concealment of identities is managed. We discuss the appropriate role of information technology and computer support for the peer‐review process within that framework.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

Nobarany

Booth

2016

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of other work that analyzes peer review processes and texts include Myers ' (1990) Writing Biology and Lamont's (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Additionally, scholars in science education have documented and analyzed their own review experiences and critically written about review processes more generally, including publishing reviewer and editor comments and their formal responses to those comments (Eisenhart, 2002;Roth, 2002aRoth, , 2002bRoth, , 2002cRoth, , 2004Scantlebury, 2002;Tobin, 2002), and in the field of biomedicine, researchers have interviewed editors and reviewers about their experiences (Lipworth & Kerridge, 2011). Their work demonstrates the value in examining the review process by writing about the micro-processes involved with the aim of empowering other actors.…”

Section: Methodological Basis For Peer Review Analysismentioning

confidence: 98%

Using peer reviews to examine micropolitics and disciplinary development of engineering education: a case study

Beddoes

2012

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a case study of the peer review process for a feminist article submitted to an engineering education journal. It demonstrates how an examination of peer review can be a useful approach to further understanding the development of feminist thought in education fields. Rather than opposition to feminist thought per se, my experience reveals that opposing beliefs about what a feminist contribution to engineering education entails pose a challenge to those aiming to engage with feminist thought.

show abstract

“…Another possible result of this is that reviewers could be stricter in their appraisals within an already conservative environment, and thereby further prevent the publication of research. As such, we can see that strong, but often conflicting arguments and attitudes exist for both sides of the anonymity debate (see e.g., Prechelt et al (2017); Seeber & Bacchelli (2017)), and are deeply linked to critical discussions about power dynamics in peer review ( Lipworth & Kerridge, 2011). …”

Section: The Traits and Trends Affecting Modern Peer Reviewmentioning

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

Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review

Cited by 17 publications

References 67 publications

Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review

Using peer reviews to examine micropolitics and disciplinary development of engineering education: a case study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About