Is peer review in academic publishing still working?

Andrew Gibbons,Sonja Arndt,Petar Jandrić,Ramona Mihăilă,Kirsten Locke,Nesta Devine,Elizabeth Grierson,Georgina Stewart,Leon Benade,Liz Jackson,George Lăzăroiu,Michael A Peters,Peter Roberts,Marek Tesar,Daniella Forster,Jānis (John) Ozoliņš

doi:10.4324/9781003171959-12

Abstract

Peer review is central to academic publishing. Yet for many it is a mysterious and contentious practice, which can cause distress for both reviewers and those whose work is reviewed. This paper, produced by the Editors Collective, examines the past and future of peer review in academic publishing. The first sections consider how peer review has been defined and practised in changing academic contexts, and its educational significance in the development of scholarship. The paper then explores major historical and contemporary issues around identity, diversity, anonymity, and the review process, and the related power of editors versus reviewers in academic publishing. Finally, the paper discusses the case of new scholars as reviewers engaging in neoliberal labour, before concluding with some brief recommendations based on our analysis.

Highlights

Peer review occupies a central position in academic publishing yet is seldom acknowledged publicly as a normal part of academic work
The paper discusses the case of new scholars as reviewers engaging in neoliberal labour, before concluding with some brief recommendations based on our analysis
The future of peer review is hard to predict, since it resides within the dynamic social, political-economic domain of publishing and information sharing

Summary

Introduction

Peer review occupies a central position in academic publishing yet is seldom acknowledged publicly as a normal part of academic work. In the age of digital reason, it has become increasingly important for less formal, non-academic ‘co-creation and co-production of knowledge, of digital goods in general, and of social democratic processes’ (Peters & Jandrić, 2017). Peer review has become one of the most mysterious and contentious academic practices, causing anguish for many academics—both reviewers, and those whose work is reviewed—and sometimes more

JACKSON ET AL

Conclusion

Findings

Notes on contributors