Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2

Abstract

This two-part article reviews the current literature on journal peer review. Research on this subject has grown during the 1980s and 1990s and has increased our awareness of both the myths and facts about peer review. Part 1 summarizes research findings on the participants in the system (the appointment mechanisms of editors and referees, and reviewer tasks and qualifications) and systemic problems of reliability, accuracy, and bias. Part 2 describes current research on how fraud, favoritism, and self-interest may affect the review system and on such policy issues as interference of particularistic criteria; connections among editors, authors, and referees; and double-blind review. Although the literature indicates that peer review has many problems, the author concludes that it is difficult to imagine how science could advance without such a key quality control mechanism.

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 — 132 citations exist upstream.

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