I appreciated reading Lovejoy et al.’s (2011) overview of the peer review process as it gave me a better sense of elements that need to be considered when establishing a high-quality peer review – including a summary of Do’s and Don’ts of the process.
Scholar David Shatz published work, “Peer review : a critical inquiry” (which can be found on the shelves of the Inforum) explores the challenges and biases in the peer review process. For example, he discusses how reviewers can be biased in favor of an author’s subject expertise, credentials and affiliated education institution (especially if it’s prestigious).
While I still believe that the objective of peer reviewing is to ensure quality in academic writing – it still has its share of controversy and biases. Much of the information and knowledge that is currently being created is collaborative shared, social and participatory which encourages diverse and alternative perspectives. Therefore, I believe it would be valuable for scholarly works to incorporate a “open” or “public” review – one that allows the general public to provide feedback — along with the peer reviewed version. It would allow for an iterative process when evaluating scholarly works and seek to challenge dominant ideologies embedded in academia.
– Frieda M.
Lovejoy, T.I., et al. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13.