Previous Article in event
Approaches to Peer Review
Published:
28 January 2015
by MDPI
in 1st Electronic Conference of MDPI Editors-in-Chief
session Running a Journal
Abstract: Peer review is the most widely accepted model for setting a threshold of published scholarly material. With the move to digital publishing, it has come under attack with suggestions that it is 'broken', overloading reviewers and possibly no longer fit for purpose. This presentation discusses the challenges for peer review and some emerging new models. Ultimately, we may need to take a step back to ask what peer review is for and how these aims can best be achieved.
Keywords: peer review
Comments on this paper
Albrecht Classen
28 January 2015
peer review
Fine presentation, thanks. There are several sides to the issue. Editors suffer b/c their reviewers do not work hard and fast enough. Authors suffer b/c they don't get speedy responses (at best
3-5 months later). Reviewers suffer b/c of the unrewarding work imposed on them. However, this is basically also the issue with all student work. We as scholars and teachers must evaluate and grade. The same applies to all scholarly and scientific work.
The most important aspect is, in my opinion, that the editor keeps good track and helps both sides to get the paper/s through the process. Ultimately, we are all in this together, so although no one is really paid for reviewing, but we all need this critical evaluation, otherwise scholarship comes to an end.
3-5 months later). Reviewers suffer b/c of the unrewarding work imposed on them. However, this is basically also the issue with all student work. We as scholars and teachers must evaluate and grade. The same applies to all scholarly and scientific work.
The most important aspect is, in my opinion, that the editor keeps good track and helps both sides to get the paper/s through the process. Ultimately, we are all in this together, so although no one is really paid for reviewing, but we all need this critical evaluation, otherwise scholarship comes to an end.
Martyn Rittman
29 January 2015
Albrecht. Thanks, I agree. One aspect I didn't mention is the increasing load on reviewers, especially in the US - see Adrian Mulligan's discussion at http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/issue-45-november-2014/researchers-think-peer-review-process/.
At the end of the day most reviewers, authors, editors and readers come from the same group of people, and I think the system relies a lot on the expectation of others also giving their time.
At the end of the day most reviewers, authors, editors and readers come from the same group of people, and I think the system relies a lot on the expectation of others also giving their time.
Dietrich Rordorf
2 February 2015
Reply by Dr. Albrecht Classen, received by e-mail on 29 January 2015:
"I agree, there is a flipside to reviewing; radically new ideas or experimental papers might face conservative reviews. However, the basic foundation of all research must also be met by the authors, so reviewers play an essential role; otherwise purely commercial or political intentions will enter the pictures."
"I agree, there is a flipside to reviewing; radically new ideas or experimental papers might face conservative reviews. However, the basic foundation of all research must also be met by the authors, so reviewers play an essential role; otherwise purely commercial or political intentions will enter the pictures."
