Peer and present dangers (1 of 3)

September 20, 2012

I agree entirely with Stephen Mumford's timely critique of the peer-review process for academic journals and the system's lack of transparency ("Peer pressure", Opinion, 13 September).

I have been asked on numerous occasions to review articles that are only tangentially relevant to my research. Most recently I peer-reviewed an article that did match my expertise, but the other reviewer openly admitted that they did not know much about the topic in question and that they had asked their daughter about it! (I rejected the article and the other reviewer accepted it.)

It was also revealing when compiling an email list to publicise my recently published book that a number (albeit small) of the editorial board members of journals in my field were uncontactable or dead. I reflected on what this demonstrated about the professionalism of publishers and journal editorial boards. It is true that some boards run transparent elections, but many journals seem to be opaque fiefdoms.

What Mumford does not do is suggest how the process could be professionalised and made more transparent and accountable.

First, the research excellence framework takes no account (and indeed militates against) the free labour needed to peer-review and edit journals, and this should change.

Second, peer reviewers spend time and lend expertise when reviewing, and therefore should be paid for it. I believe that even nominal fees would encourage peer reviewers to spend more time on the work and complete it in a more timely manner (I am currently waiting for feedback on an article submitted to a journal more than five months ago - the publication had promised me there would be a two-month turnaround).

Third, there should be a clear link between peer review and the make-up of editorial boards: if academics peer-review for a journal, they should be entitled to membership.

The final point is the most contentious, but if peer reviewers were named, it might make journal editors invest more time in choosing appropriate ones who would write only comments that they feel happy to be identified with, thus preventing the worst kind of unconsidered review. Open peer review is now accepted in mathematics, astrophysics and medicine, so perhaps it is time for the arts, humanities and social sciences to consider it.

I believe that journals must change, and I hope there can be more dialogue and debate about this vital question.

Daniel Conway, Lecturer in politics, Loughborough University

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

men in office with feet on desk. Vintage

Three-quarters of respondents are dissatisfied with the people running their institutions

A face made of numbers looks over a university campus

From personalising tuition to performance management, the use of data is increasingly driving how institutions operate

students use laptops

Researchers say students who use computers score half a grade lower than those who write notes

Canal houses, Amsterdam, Netherlands

All three of England’s for-profit universities owned in Netherlands

As the country succeeds in attracting even more students from overseas, a mixture of demographics, ‘soft power’ concerns and local politics help explain its policy