The Church and Peer Review: Was 'Peer' Review Fairer, More Honest Then Than Now?

Abstract

The traditional thought regarding peer review tends to be that it started with the establishment of the academy, sometime around 1650. It is a reasonable presumption that to have peer review one needs first to have peers. However, the actual review of works certainly occurred long before 1650. Of some importance is the nature of that review that took place prior to the appearance of universities in Bologna and Paris. The standard (and misapplied) logic is that the Church wielded a heavy hand on all publishing, acting as a restraint on inappropriate works prior to their publication. This is not wholly true, however. The Church is best known for its suppression of works post-publication. In a way, it acted as a critic, offering its advice to authors who it found proposed errant ideas and suggesting they might wish to recant and return to good standing. This is interesting when cast in today's peer-review environment. The author suggests that much can be learned from the Church's method of dealing with scholarship, especially in a world of e-reserves. Should we ditch the traditional peer-review method and go back to a publish-then-evaluate system used by the Holy See? In large part, the author argues that unless the academy is willing to cure the perceived ills of peer review and do so soon, the question will be answered in the affirmative, with or without our agreement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.