Abstract
Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community has been digitised and can be accessed in full on this website. All content is freely available on an open-access basis. Serials was published between 1988 and 2011. In 2012, the journal was retitled and is now published as Insights: the UKSG journal.
Highlights
In recent years, the peer-review process has attracted criticism, from individuals involved in the process, and the press who have questioned its validity 1,2
Most researchers (69%) are satisfied with the current system of peer review. This response is even more emphatic when you consider that it represents an increase of five points since the same question was asked in the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) study in 2007 (Figure 1)
Questions:To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following objectives should be the purpose of peer review To what extent do you agree or disagree that peer review is curently able to do the following? And, to what extent do you agree that peer review currently fulfils the objectives below?
Summary
The peer-review process has attracted criticism, from individuals involved in the process, and the press who have questioned its validity 1,2. It is fundamental to integration of new research findings in hundreds of fields of enquiry It is the front line in critical review of research, enabling other researchers to analyse or use findings and, in turn, society at large to sift research claims. It is growing year on year with the expansion of the global research community, and with it has come a corresponding expansion of concerns about involving the generation of researchers in peer review in sufficient numbers. Can the peerreviewing effort be sustained? What has the impact been of electronic technologies, and will alternative metrics play a greater role?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
