Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?
Saved in:
| 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.
Login for full access.
|
|
| 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] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00264695 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z |
