View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
Authors: Horbach, Serge P. J. M.1,2 s.horbach@science.ru.nl, Halffman, Willem1
Source: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy. Jun2020, Vol. 58 Issue 2, p139-161. 23p.
Subject Terms: *Scholarly peer review, *Scholarly publishing, *Scholarly periodicals, Science publishing, Fraud investigation
Abstract: Peer review of journal submissions has become one of the most important pillars of quality management in academic publishing. Because of growing concerns with the quality and effectiveness of the system, a host of enthusiastic innovators has proposed and experimented with new procedures and technologies. However, little is known about whether these innovations manage to convince other journal editors. This paper will address open questions regarding the implementation of new review procedures, the occurrence rate of various peer review procedures and their distribution over scientific disciplines or academic publishers, as well as the motivations for editors or publishers to engage in novel review procedures. It shows that in spite of enthusiastic innovation, the adoption of new peer review procedures is in fact very slow, with the exception of text similarity scanners. For now, peer review innovations appear to be restricted to specific niches in academic publishing. Analysing these niches, the article concludes with a reflection on the circumstances in which innovations might be more widely implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 143194048
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Horbach%2C+Serge+P%2E+J%2E+M%2E%22">Horbach, Serge P. J. M.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo><i> s.horbach@science.ru.nl</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Halffman%2C+Willem%22">Halffman, Willem</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Minerva%3A+A+Review+of+Science%2C+Learning+%26+Policy%22">Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy</searchLink>. Jun2020, Vol. 58 Issue 2, p139-161. 23p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+peer+review%22">Scholarly peer review</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+publishing%22">Scholarly publishing</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+periodicals%22">Scholarly periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+publishing%22">Science publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Fraud+investigation%22">Fraud investigation</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Peer review of journal submissions has become one of the most important pillars of quality management in academic publishing. Because of growing concerns with the quality and effectiveness of the system, a host of enthusiastic innovators has proposed and experimented with new procedures and technologies. However, little is known about whether these innovations manage to convince other journal editors. This paper will address open questions regarding the implementation of new review procedures, the occurrence rate of various peer review procedures and their distribution over scientific disciplines or academic publishers, as well as the motivations for editors or publishers to engage in novel review procedures. It shows that in spite of enthusiastic innovation, the adoption of new peer review procedures is in fact very slow, with the exception of text similarity scanners. For now, peer review innovations appear to be restricted to specific niches in academic publishing. Analysing these niches, the article concludes with a reflection on the circumstances in which innovations might be more widely implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=143194048
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 139
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Scholarly peer review
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarly publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarly periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fraud investigation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Horbach, Serge P. J. M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Halffman, Willem
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Text: Jun2020
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00264695
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy
              Type: main
ResultId 1