Practical Suggestions for Improving Scholarly Peer Review Quality and Reducing Cycle Times
نویسنده
چکیده
Scholarly peer review is both central to scientific progress and deeply flawed. Peer review is prejudiced, capricious, inefficient, ineffective, and generally unscientific. Management journals have longer review cycles than journals in other fields. Long cycle times demonstrably harm early-career researchers. Meanwhile, a lack of transparency conceals and facilitates editorial misconduct, and some dismiss legitimate criticism of peer review as unfounded resentment. We can address these problems by eliminating unnecessary reviewing, simplifying the peer review process, introducing author rebuttals, creating an AIS ombudsman, and enforcing the relationship between submitting and reviewing. These problems are, however, entangled with fundamental problems with journals. Ultimately, therefore, we can only fix peer review in conjunction with replacing journals with repositories.
منابع مشابه
Author Responsibilities in Improving the Quality of Peer Reviews: A Rejoinder to Iivari (2016)
In this rejoinder to Iivari (2016), I discuss authors’ responsibilities in the process of ensuring quality reviews. I argue that one overlooked element in quality peer reviewing is authors’ unconstrained right to submit manuscripts in whatever form or quality they desire. As such, I suggest adding some constraints and offering more freedom to reviewers to maintain viability of the scholarly pub...
متن کاملWhat is Peer Review, and Does it Have a Future?
Peer review underlies the present system of scholarly publication. The present essay examines what authors, reviewers and editors are saying about peer review and its future. Factors discussed include peer reviewer motivation, the process and potential alternatives, validity and reliability, recognition and rewards for peer reviewers, and the impact of technology and Open Access on scholarly co...
متن کاملBest peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals
Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the be...
متن کاملWhat is Peer Review, and Does it Have a Future?
Peer review underlies the present system of scholarly publication. The present essay examines what authors, reviewers and editors are saying about peer review and its future. Factors discussed include peer reviewer motivation, the process and potential alternatives, validity and reliability, recognition and rewards for peer reviewers, and the impact of technology and Open Access on scholarly co...
متن کاملThe impact of digital dissemination for research and scholarship
Technological advances such as web-based peer review and powerful desktop publishing software have reduced the resources needed to operate a scholarly journal making it feasible for small societies or other groups of scholars to publish high quality journals without large capital investments. The transition to digital media has also largely eliminated the marginal cost of disseminating each cop...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- CAIS
دوره 38 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2016