{"title":"打开潘多拉的盒子:对同行评审过程的批判","authors":"Lucia-Mihaela Grosu-Rădulescu","doi":"10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’\nformal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields.\nScientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined\na race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with\npromotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking\njournals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial\nteams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers.\nThis article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review\npractice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that\nhave also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists\nwhich ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension\nabout bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for\ngolden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to\nsupervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.","PeriodicalId":38079,"journal":{"name":"Synergy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"OPENING PANDORA’S BOX:\\nA CRITIQUE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESSES\",\"authors\":\"Lucia-Mihaela Grosu-Rădulescu\",\"doi\":\"10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’\\nformal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields.\\nScientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined\\na race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with\\npromotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking\\njournals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial\\nteams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers.\\nThis article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review\\npractice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that\\nhave also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists\\nwhich ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension\\nabout bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for\\ngolden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to\\nsupervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Synergy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Synergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Synergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24818/syn/2022/18/1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
OPENING PANDORA’S BOX:
A CRITIQUE OF PEER REVIEW PROCESSES
Publishing procedures in all scientific areas have been in constant flux to ensure articles’
formal unity and most importantly significant contribution to respective research fields.
Scientists but more specifically higher education professionals across the globe have joined
a race for “points” to warrant their standing in academic communities or to comply with
promotion or tenure requirements. Publishing scientific/ academic work in high-ranking
journals is today the norm in most universities worldwide which has imposed on editorial
teams methods of selection relying almost exclusively on the authority of reviewers.
This article will present a brief overview of recent concerns regarding the peer review
practice in different publishing fields and the issue of less than collegial behaviours that
have also emerged. The paper examines the importance of unbiased feedback of specialists
which ensures the quality of published materials and highlights authors’ apprehension
about bullying in peer review processes. The present critique will also mention the need for
golden rules of conduct for peer reviewers and the necessity of editorial boards to
supervise and address inappropriate aggressive comments from reviewers.