Refereeing the Game of Peer Review

Abstract

In this dialogue, I depict the journal peer review process as a high-stakes game involving three parties: editor, reviewer, and author. In light of a not-infrequent transposition of what should have been a constructive professional development process into a self-promotional social process, critiques of peer review have abounded, such as the “as-is” process recently recommended by Eric Tsang and Bruno Frey in this journal. While the “as-is” process highlights and potentially remedies some of the abuses of the system, there may be less radical options through professional education and development to preserve the critical developmental function of peer review.

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 — 67 citations exist upstream.

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