Abstract
Rooted in altruism theory, the purpose of the double-blind academic journal peer-review process is to: (1) assess the quality of scientific research, (2) minimize the potential for nepotism, and; (3) advance the standards of research through high-quality, constructive feedback. However, considering the limited, if any, public recognition and monetary incentives that referees receive for reviewing manuscripts, academics are often reluctant to squander their limited time toward peer reviewing manuscripts. If they do accept such invitations, referees, at times, do not invest the appropriate time needed and, as a result, scantily review manuscripts, which adversely affects the quality of the review. In addition, given that authors’ identities are not blind to journal editors, there is the potential for bias toward well-established academics from highly-ranked institutions. As a result of these issues, the aims of the academic journal review process are currently not being fulfilled. To rectify these issues, several recommendations, namely: single-blind the editors, pay reviewers, standardize the review process, increase the acceptance standards at academic conferences, and provide constructive feedback, are offered.
Published Version
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