WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS FOR JOURNALS?

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN PEER REVIEW-LAND!
Since I’m in a series on how to succeed through the peer-review process for publishing journal articles, I thought I’d interrupt my blog with an announcement you might be interested in reading on that topic.

I just received an email about a conference on peer review. Maybe you did too. This blurb by the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing cites a few contentious quotes about the process, such as

• Peer review "is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than do chance." (Horrobin, 2001) This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors. (“OUCH!” said Ron.)

• Only 8% of the members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is” (Chubin & Hackett, 1990, p.192).

On the other side of the fence,

• "Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" (Goodstein, 2000). It is a necessary condition in quality assurance for Scientific/Engineering publications.

• "Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science…why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process" (Horrobin, 2001).

The references cited for these statements are given below:
Chubin, D. R., & Hackett E. J. (1990). Peerless science, peer review and U.S. science policy. NY: State University of New York Press.

Goodstein, D. (2000). How science works (pp. 66–72). Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Judiciary Reference Manual on Evidence.

Horrobin, D. (2001). Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22( 2). Also at http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sci.html and http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev4.htm (both Web pages were accessed on February 1, 2010)

SOME THOUGHTS: So what are we supposed to do about these issues? As faculty trying to publish and hurdle the review process as it is, we should continue to hurdle. The criticism that peer review is fallible is certainly not new. The process is based entirely on professional judgment. We know that.

At present, despite the variability in editors and reviewers of the journals to which we submit our best work, the peer-review process is still the best we have. We submit manuscripts in good faith that there is integrity in the process.

Maybe the symposium will recommend steps for improvement. That would be great. But for now, we need to navigate through the process and produce, or else we won’t be around to discuss the polemics on any topic.

I will resume my suggestions for revising rejected manuscripts in my next blog. In the meantime, keep hurdling!

COPYRIGHT © 2010 Ronald A. Berk, LLC