Abstract

Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive or neutral. We conclude that on present evidence abolishing peer review weakly dominates the status quo.

Highlights

  • Peer review plays a central role in contemporary academic life

  • Epistemic sorting happens not via the binary act of granting or withholding publication, but rather through sorting manuscripts into journals located on a prestige hierarchy that tracks scientific merit

  • Where above we argued that prepublication peer review is not making a positive difference often claimed for it, we downplay a potential benefit of our proposal

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Peer review plays a central role in contemporary academic life. It sits at the critical juncture where scientific work is accepted for publication or rejected. While we admit to a number of cases where the evidence is ambiguous or lacking (see especially Section 5), we claim that the present state of the evidence suggests that abolishing prepublication peer review would lead to a peculiar sort of Pareto improvement: each factor considered is either neutral or favours our proposal. We say that this is a ‘peculiar sort of Pareto improvement’ because it is not a typical dominance argument. That even a sceptical reader will read on; if not to be convinced of the need of abolishing prepublication peer review, at least to see where in our view their future research efforts should concentrate if they are to shore up prepublication peer review’s claims to good epistemic standing

Setting the Stage
Sharing scientific results
Time allocation
Gender skew in publications
Library resources
Scientific careers
The power of gatekeepers
Where Peer Review Makes No Difference
Epistemic sorting
Malpractice detection
Herding behaviour
Long-run credit
Difficulties for Our Proposal
A guarantee for outsiders
A runaway Matthew effect
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call