DailyDirt: Problems With Peer Reviewed Publications

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Peer review isn’t exactly a sexy topic, but it’s an essential part of academic publishing — and it may need to change a bit to keep up with the times. Peer review is typically a thankless chore that is distributed among academics working in a network of related fields, and sometimes personal politics can enter into the process if the subject matter is obscure enough. Misconduct in peer review doesn’t usually get the same kind of coverage as various journalistic scandals (eg. Rolling Stone, Buzzfeed, etc), but the damages done can be even more significant to society.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Problems With Peer Reviewed Publications”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Lepton x says:


Peer review is not an objective rule based process. It’s subjective as the reviewer is asked to gauge the work’s novelty as well as its impact and authenticity.

An article may be rejected for any one of the above based on the journals own internal, ‘floating’, standards. Researchers know which journals will likely publish their work just by reading comparable papers previously published (i.e. don’t try to publish your global cooling hypothesis in a journal that only published global warming papers)

Every journal has its own biases, and some may not like you or your area or even what country you reside.
There are often cabals of reviewers with a particular view who span several journals.

The whole process is biased, but not totally corrupt. Journals are in the business of selling overpriced subscriptions though and there is MASSIVE competition due to an over-abundance of journals.

It’s also a fact most people with things to do don’t want to serve as reviewers (Ala jury duty) and so you may get a particular type of wanker who enjoys sadistic rejection.
It’s also true a reviewer is unlikely to approve a paper that contradicts his or her own research.

The process is marginally fair if you do your due diligence in selecting the right journal.

P.S- people who publish crap may get away with it once or twice, but then the plug will be pulled.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...