Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid: The Academic Journal Review Process in the Social Sciences Is Broken, Let’s Fix It

Journal of Academic Ethics 13 (3):277-289 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Rooted in altruism theory, the purpose of the double-blind academic journal peer-review process is to: assess the quality of scientific research, minimize the potential for nepotism, and; advance the standards of research through high-quality, constructive feedback. However, considering the limited, if any, public recognition and monetary incentives that referees receive for reviewing manuscripts, academics are often reluctant to squander their limited time toward peer reviewing manuscripts. If they do accept such invitations, referees, at times, do not invest the appropriate time needed and, as a result, scantily review manuscripts, which adversely affects the quality of the review. In addition, given that authors’ identities are not blind to journal editors, there is the potential for bias toward well-established academics from highly-ranked institutions. As a result of these issues, the aims of the academic journal review process are currently not being fulfilled. To rectify these issues, several recommendations, namely: single-blind the editors, pay reviewers, standardize the review process, increase the acceptance standards at academic conferences, and provide constructive feedback, are offered

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethical issues in journal Peer-review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
The problem of humiliation in peer review.Debra R. Comer & Michael Schwartz - 2014 - Ethics and Education 9 (2):141-156.
On doffing the mask.D. G. Brown - 2007 - Journal of Academic Ethics 5 (2-4):217-219.
Commensuration Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1272-1283,.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-08-13

Downloads
21 (#631,231)

6 months
2 (#670,035)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?