Electronic Dissertations LibraryExploring the development of the independent, electronic, scholarly journal, by Alison WellsPeer reviewBefore a paper is included in a journal, it usually has to go through some form of review, to make sure that it is worth including. Ellis (1997) describes peer review as "the system by which journal editors seek the opinion of reviewers or referees of manuscripts which have been submitted". Zinn-Justin (1997) defines the role of the referee as:
Usually these referees are experts on the subject of the paper where the editor generally is not. The process is often carried out by a 'double blind' method where the reviewer does not know the name of the author of the work they are criticising, and vice versa. (Cronin in Ellis, 1997) defines the criteria that the reviewers use when evaluating a paper as:
The editors rely on the judgement of the reviewer as to whether the paper should be published. Brown (1997) sees peer review as meaning that "scholars can have access to the latest and best research with some assurance that those publishing are reputable and reliable sources of information". Most people agree on the importance of some kind of quality control to fulfil the journal's function of validation, for example Willis (1995) who feels that peer review is necessary to stop users wading through rubbish and to give constructive criticism that helps authors to write better papers. As well as filtering papers for one journal, peer review also helps direct them to more appropriate journals if necessary, and "ensur[es] that material is absorbed" (Ellis, 1997) The reviewing system is important to the author as well, because having papers accepted by journals is the measure by which his or her research is judged. The reputation of the journal is founded on the reputation of the editors and referees, and thus affects the perceived quality of the research. Peer review has its drawbacks though. Firstly the amount of time taken to review a paper can seriously affect the time taken to get into print. There are too many articles and too few reviewers, leading to delays (Harnad, 1996). These delays can often be up to 18 months, meaning that in a fast moving discipline, research can quite easily be out of date by then. Also, the reciprocal nature of peer review where reviewers are expected to work for free gives little incentive to make it a priority. All too often "editors have to press friends into doing them favours" (Moret, 1997). Secondly, and more importantly, peer review can serve to maintain the view of the establishment, with radical papers on unpopular theories being rejected. Ellis (1997) thinks that peer review "legitimises bias". Rathey (1994) feels that: "Peer review is not now, and has never been, objective. It is an entirely human process and because of this, disagreement is inevitable." Also, peer review is not necessarily the best method for all journals. Whereas some journals publish long scholarly papers and aim towards maintaining a scholarly archive, (e.g. Journal of Chromatography), others have been set up purely to publish short notes on current research or informal accounts of conferences (e.g. NewScientist). Here the time factor is crucial, and so the long delays which can occur with peer review are a hindrance. Both types of journals are important and fulfil a role in scholarly communication. ReferencesBrown, S.A. (1997). Scholarly publishing using electronic means : a short guide. Newcastle : University of Northumbria at Newcastle. Ellis, D.(1997). Peer review : the refereeing process [http://www.shef.ac.uk/training/gsc600/wk_10note.html]. Site visited at 16.4.99 Harnad, S. (1996). Implementing peer review on the Net : Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. [http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad96.peer.review.html]. Site visited at 16.4.99 Moret, B.M.E. (September 1997). "Bridging the gap between theory and practice", Journal of Electronic Publishing, 3(1). [http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/JEA.html]. Site visited at 16.4.99 Rathey, S. (1994). Electronic journals and peer review : perils and promises. [http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/rathie/elecpub/paper3.html]. Site visited at 16.4.99 Willis, J. (1995). Bridging the gap between traditional and electronic scholarly publishing. [http://www.coe.uh.edu/~brobin/Educom95/EducomJW/index.html]. Site visited at 16.4.99 Zinn-Justin, J. (1997). Peer review and electronic publishing. [http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/books/online/tiepac/session3/ch3.htm]. Site visited at 16.4.99 Exploring the development of the independent,
electronic, scholarly journal, by Alison Wells
MSc in Information Management, 1998/1999 Electronic Dissertations Library © University of Sheffield - Department of Information Sudies (All Rights Reserved) |