Article published in:
Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 1:1 (2020) ► pp. 51–65
Perspectives

Peer review

Objective screening or wishful thinking?

| University of East Anglia
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What’s it for?
  • 3.What’s not to like?
    • 3.1Reviewer decisions (really) matter
    • 3.2Long decision delays
    • 3.3Bias and subjectivity
    • 3.4Condescension and rudeness
    • 3.5Skulduggery and dishonesty
  • 4.So what’s to be done?
    • 4.1Train peer reviewers
    • 4.2Reward peer reviewers
    • 4.3Restructure peer reviewing
  • 5.Some conclusions
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 20 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl
References
APA
(2018) Summary report of journal operations. American Psychologist, 73(5), 683–684. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S.
(2010) We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 13 2010.Google Scholar
Belcher, D.
(2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornman, L., & Mutz, L.
(2014) Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1288–1292.Google Scholar
Brainard, J., & You, J.
(2018) What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, Oct. 25 2018 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C.
(2012) Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science, October 2012 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J.
(2007) The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4(1), e40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M.
(2003) Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 181, 375–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coniam, D.
(2012) Exploring reviewer reactions to papers submitted to academic journals. System. 401, 544–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J.
(2015) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 22–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeCoursey, T.
(2006) The pros and cons of open peer review: Should authors be told who their reviewers are? Nature 2006 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, E., & Resch, K. L.
(1994) Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 124(2), 178–82.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W.
(2003) The effectiveness of editorial peer review. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 62–75). London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar
Fortanet, I.
(2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N.
(1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 2801, 237–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grove, J.
(2018) Half of UK academics ‘suffer stress-linked mental health problems’. Times Higher Education Supplement 6 July 2018 <https://​www​.timeshighereducation​.com​/news​/half​-uk​-academics​-suffer​-stress​-linked​-mental​-health​-problems> (20 February 2020).
Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. H.
(2019) Peer review bias: A critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670–676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haug, C. J.
(2015) Peer-review fraud – Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 3731, 2393–2395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
(2011) Peer review in scientific communications. Eighth Report of Session 2010–2012. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Howard, G.
(2012) Peer review as boundary work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(3), 322–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2015) Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the production of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic disadvantage. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 58–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F.
(2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007(Issue 2), Art. No.: MR000016.Google Scholar
Kwan, B.
(2013) Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 381, 207–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, M.
(2009) How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B.
(2013) Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 641, 2–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R.
(1973) The normative structure of science. In R. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–280). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E.
(2013) Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 641, 132–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, E., Cousar, M., Lentini, J., Castillo, M., Halm, K., & Zeffiro, T.
(2017) Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 381, 230–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Okike, K., Kocher, M. S., Mehlman, C. T., Heckman, J. D., & Bhandari, M.
(2008) Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 90(11), 2432–2437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B.
(2013) Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it? International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1) 6–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) The discourse of peer review. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Llantada, C.
(2014) Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalization. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Prechelt, L., Graziotin, D., & Méndez Fernández, D.
(2017) A community’s perspective on the status and future of peer review in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 30 October 2017 <https://​arxiv​.org​/pdf​/1706​.07196​.pdf> (20 February 2020).
Preston, A., & Culley, T.
(2017) Formal recognition for peer review will propel research forward. LSE Impact Blog 1 June 2017 <https://​blogs​.lse​.ac​.uk​/impactofsocialsciences​/2017​/06​/01​/formal​-recognition​-for​-peer​-review​-will​-propel​-research​-forward/> (20 February 2020).
Publishing Research Consortium
(2016) Peer review survey 2015. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting.Google Scholar
Reller, T.
(2016) Elsevier publishing – A look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier Connect. https://​www​.elsevier​.com​/connect​/elsevier​-publishing​-a​-look​-at​-the​-numbers​-and​-more> (20 February 2020).
Research Information Network
(2008) Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. http://​www​.rin​.ac​.uk​/system​/files​/attachments​/Activities​-costs​-flows​-summary​.pdf> (20 February 2020).
Rigby, J., Cox, D., & Julian, K.
(2018) Journal peer review: A bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1087–1105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., & Daniels, S. R.
(2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 2951, 1675–1680. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N.
(2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 1231, 1964–1969. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N.
(2013) Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3): 157–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saposnik, C., Ovbiagele, C., Raptis, C., Fisher, C., & Johnston, C.
(2014) Effect of English proficiency and research funding on acceptance of submitted articles to Stroke journal. Stroke, 45(6), 1862–1868. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R.
(2008) What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(10): 507–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sciullo, N., & Duncan, M.
(2019) Professionalizing peer review: Suggestions for a more ethical and pedagogical review process. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 501, 248–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sense About Science
(2009) Peer Review Survey 2009: Full Report. http://​www​.senseaboutscience​.org​/data​/files​/Peer​_Review​/Peer​_Review​_Survey​_Final​_3​.pdf [author query, link no longer available]
Suls, J., & Martin, R.
(2009) The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40–50.Google Scholar
Tardy, C.
(2019) We are all reviewer 2: A window into the secret world of peer review. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp. 271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor & Francis
(2015) Peer review in 2015: A global view. A white paper. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Waggenknecht, D.
(2018) Unhelpful, caustic and slow: The academic community should rethink the way publications are reviewed. LSE Impact Blog 22 June 2018 <https://​blogs​.lse​.ac​.uk​/impactofsocialsciences​/2018​/06​/22​/unhelpful​-caustic​-and​-slow​-the​-academic​-community​-should​-rethink​-the​-way​-publications​-are​-reviewed/> (20 February 2020).
Ward, J. E., & Donnelly, N.
(1998) Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC? Medical Journal of Australia, 1691, 623–624. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ware, M., & Mabe, M.
(2015) The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (4th ed.). Oxford: STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.Google Scholar
Warne, V.
(2016) Rewarding reviewers – Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 291, 41–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Full-text

Peer review
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Fazel, Ismaeil & Joel Heng Hartse
2020. Gray areas of academic publishing. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 1:2 ► pp. 184 ff. Crossref logo
Soler, Josep
2021. Linguistic injustice in academic publishing in English. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 2:2 ► pp. 160 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.