2021
Objectivity of the peer‐review process: Enduring myth, reality, and possible remedies
Abstract: Key points The ‘replication crisis’ in science raises serious questions about the objectivity and reliability of the peer‐review process. Much of the literature, contributed on the topic in the past by former editors, has focused on the role of reviewers, and their possible biases. However, experience in practice shows that editors also contribute significantly, at different levels, to the lack of objectivity of peer‐review. Various techniques, including network analysis and machine learning, can be implement…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
6
1
0
0
Citation Types
0
5
0
0
Year Published
2021
2024
Publication Types
Select...
6
1
Relationship
1
6
Authors
Journals
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
References 29 publications
0
5
0
0
“…Allen et al, 2019). While reviews are often criticised for being too subjective a means of checking academic standards (Baveye, 2021), it is the hard work authors put in to reworking their manuscripts, I believe, that leads to high-quality output. Africa Spectrum's improved quality thus might be (coincidentally?)…”
Section: Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Allen et al, 2019). While reviews are often criticised for being too subjective a means of checking academic standards (Baveye, 2021), it is the hard work authors put in to reworking their manuscripts, I believe, that leads to high-quality output. Africa Spectrum's improved quality thus might be (coincidentally?)…”
Section: Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there is much debate over its objectivity, reliability and effectiveness, 1,2 peer review is a prevalent and integral part of scholarly publishing. Peer reviewers play essential roles in this process as independent assessors who evaluate and comment on manuscripts prior to publication in order to maintain academic standards of published articles.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when referring to the comments of reviewers to make decisions on whether the manuscript can be published, editors lack the necessary professional judgment and sense of responsibility. 4 If editors receive a negative evaluation from a reviewer, they are more likely to make a decision that the manuscript can’t be published, 5 but rarely seriously evaluates whether the negative comments of the reviewer are reasonable.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
