Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 193–204 | Cite as

‘Peer review’ culture

Article

Abstract

A relatively high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions is widely recognised and acknowledged as ‘the peer review problem’. Factors contributing to this problem are identified and examined. Specific examples of unreasonable rejection are considered. It is concluded that weaknesses of the ‘peer review’ system are significant and that they are well known or readily recognisable but that necessary counter-measures are not always enforced. Careful management is necessary to discount hollow opinion or error in review comment. Review and referee functions should be quite separate.

Keywords

judgement opinion testing peer status referee function review management statistics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yallow, R.S. (1982) in: S. Harnad (ed.), Peer commentary on peer review, Cambridge University Press, p. 60.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, M. (1994) Regulation of Science by peer review, Studies in Hist. & Phil. Sci. 25: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong, J.S. (1997) Peer Review for Journals: Evidence of Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dawkins, R (1996) Climbing Mount Improbable, Viking, U.K., pp. 65–67.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wali, K. (ed.) (1998) Review of “S. Chandrasekhar”, New Scientist, 21st Feb.: 46.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wright, P. (1987) Spycatcher, Viking Penguin, N.Y., pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carter, R. (1998) Mapping the mind, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, U.K.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson-Abercrombie, M.L. (1960) The anatomy of judgement, HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanson, N.R. (1958) Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge University Press, U.K., p. 175.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson-Abercrombie, M.L., op. cit.(, pp. 57–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wessely, S. (1998) Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? The Lancet 352: 301–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    New Scientist (1997) Red tape holds up Kiwi reforms, 16th Aug., p. 45.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    New Scientist (1997) The price of prejudice, 1st Nov., pp. 3 and 22–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wennerås, C. and Wold, A. (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, Nature 387: 341–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swift, M. (1998) Correspondence on Wessley’s paper,11 The Lancet 352: 1063–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gliek, J. (1988) Chaos, Sphere Books (Macdonald), London, p. 132.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago University Press, USA, p. 90,Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horrobin, D.F. (1982) In praise of non-experts, New Scientist 94: 842–4.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Durso, T.W. (1997) Editor’s advice to rejected authors: just try, try again, The Scientist 11(21), Oct. 27, p. 13.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silver, B.J. (1990) The Ascent of Science, Oxford University Press, New York, e.g. pp. 293, 403, 432.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horrobin, D.F. (1996) Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? The Lancet 348: 1293–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin, B. (1986) Bias in awarding research grants, Brit. Med. J. 293: 550–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campanario, J.M. (1997) The ‘Journal Scout’, The Scientist 11(10), May 12, p. 9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters, D.P. and Ceci;, S.J. (1982) Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again, in: Harnad, S. (ed.), Peer commentary on peer review, Cambridge University Press, U.K.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bernard, A. (ed) (1991) Rotten rejections, Robson Books, London, p. 65.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Friedman R.M. (1989) Appropriating the Weather, Cornell University Press, USA.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jewkes, J. et al.; (1958) The Sources of Invention, Macmillan, London, p. 16.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adair, R.K. and Moravesic, M.J. (1982) A physics editor comments of Peters and Ceci’s peer review study, in: Harnard, S. (ed) Peer commentary on peer review, Cambridge University Press, U.K., pp. 12 & 43.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horrobin, D.F. (1982) Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science, The behavioural and brain sciences, pp. 5, 217.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riggs, P.J. (1992) Whys and Ways of Science, Melbourne University Press, Australia, p. 134.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.JamberooAustralia

Personalised recommendations