Presentation delivered LIR Annual seminar, 27th March 2009, Dublin, Ireland. 2009-03-27.

1. Is Peer Review Peerless?
Tony Eklof
James Joyce Library
University College Dublin
LIR Annual Seminar 2009

2. Peer Review
• What it is
• The peer review process
• Why peer review
• Criticisms
• Peer review in the sciences
• Peer review in the
humanities
• Conclusions

11. The Frescoes of Domenico Ghirlandaio:
A Study in High Renaissance and Early Mannerist Florence

13. Journal peer review process
Paper is accepted for publication, Paper to Editor
Returned with suggestions for improvements, Editor to Experts in
Or rejected. subject area (Peers)
(resubmitted elsewhere)
Peers consider for validity,
Significance and originality.

14. Double Blind Review
• Both authors & referees anonymous
• Survey shows it is preferred
• Support highest in humanities and
amongst female authors (reduces bias)
• Causes some problems with reviewers ie
comparing with earlier works
• At odds with the open sharing of
information and transparency?

15. Open Review
• Some researchers now post pre-
publication versions on web to invite
feedback before formal submission
• Increasingly reader’s comments and
criticisms, particularly for open access
journals, add a positive element to the
process

16. Why Peer Review?
• Quality control for scholarly information
• Weeds out fraud
• Lessens workload of Editor
• Promotes originality and academic rigour
– Mechanism for improvement of manuscripts
• Adds a ‘human judgement’ element to the
academic process

17. Social Text
Duke University Press

18. Criticisms
• Slows up the research process
• Time consuming for reviewers
• For some manuscripts or proposals it may be
difficult to find experts qualified to review
• Bias of reviewer
• Arbitrary, secret and subjective!
• Researchers can be frustrated by process,
valuable time spent on ‘lateral’ research

20. Nature’s Peer Review Trial
• Open Peer Review
• 1 June-30 September 2006
• Authors of new papers submitted
invited to have papers hosted on
internet for public comment
• Papers simultaneously subjected to
standard peer review

21. Nature’s Open Review
• 71 out of 1,369 authors agreed to
display papers for open comment (5%)
• Healthy online traffic, but did not
convert into significant amount of
useful comment
• Some authors reluctant for fear of
ideas being ‘scooped’
• Nature to continue to explore open
review but not to implement system

23. Peer Review in Humanities
• Applying bibliometric indicators in Arts
can be problematical
• Very broad range of subjects
• Some esoteric and specialised
• Interdisciplinary nature
• Performing arts difficult to peer review

24. Conclusion
• Peer review is a flawed, much criticised
system of insuring academic rigour in
published journal articles
• There is no better alternative system
on offer
• System improved by open and or double
blind review, and by training for peer
reviewers