{"title":"Peer review","authors":"M. Kemerink","doi":"10.1163/15718190-00873p06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the years, peer review has developed into one of the fundaments of science as a means to provide feedback on scientific output in a relatively objective manner. While peer review is done with the common good in mind, specifically to provide a quality check, a novelty and relevance check, fraud detection and general manuscript improvement, it has its weaknesses and faces threats that undermine both its effectiveness and even its goals. Herein, I address the role of the various actors in the peer reviewing process, the authors, the editors, the reviewers and the broader society. While the first three actors are active participants in the process, the role of society is indirect as it sets the boundary conditions for the process. I will argue that although authors, editors and reviewers all are in part to blame for the sub-optimal functioning of the system, it is the broader society that intentionally and unintentionally causes many of these problems by enforcing a publish-or-perish culture in academia.","PeriodicalId":43053,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue D Histoire Du Droit-The Legal History Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue D Histoire Du Droit-The Legal History Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-00873p06","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over the years, peer review has developed into one of the fundaments of science as a means to provide feedback on scientific output in a relatively objective manner. While peer review is done with the common good in mind, specifically to provide a quality check, a novelty and relevance check, fraud detection and general manuscript improvement, it has its weaknesses and faces threats that undermine both its effectiveness and even its goals. Herein, I address the role of the various actors in the peer reviewing process, the authors, the editors, the reviewers and the broader society. While the first three actors are active participants in the process, the role of society is indirect as it sets the boundary conditions for the process. I will argue that although authors, editors and reviewers all are in part to blame for the sub-optimal functioning of the system, it is the broader society that intentionally and unintentionally causes many of these problems by enforcing a publish-or-perish culture in academia.
期刊介绍：
The Legal History Review, inspired by E.M. Meijers, is a peer-reviewed journal and was founded in 1918 by a number of Dutch jurists, who set out to stimulate scholarly interest in legal history in their own country and also to provide a centre for international cooperation in the subject. This has gradually through the years been achieved. The Review had already become one of the leading internationally known periodicals in the field before 1940. Since 1950 when it emerged under Belgo-Dutch editorship its position strengthened. Much attention is paid not only to the common foundations of the western legal tradition but also to the special, frequently divergent development of national law in the various countries belonging to, or influenced by it.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
