Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors

Newton, D.P.

Abstract

Peer review gives research a stamp of approval, but the reviews themselves can be flawed. This is potentially serious for the writer, the journal, and journal user. This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and condenses them into an explanatory framework involving situational, personal, social, and ethical factors. Some proposals to improve matters are impractical and may make them worse. Some data is offered which illustrates the problem and suggests a potential solution. Informed editors who avoid mechanical approaches engage cautiously and critically with reviews and guard against bias, even in themselves, could make a significant difference.

Citation

Newton, D. (2010). Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 17(3), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: May 1, 2010
• Deposit Date: May 13, 2010
• Publicly Available Date: Mar 1, 2012
• Journal: Accountability in Research
• Print ISSN: 0898-9621
• Electronic ISSN: 1545-5815
• Publisher: Taylor and Francis Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 130-145
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945
• Keywords: Editor engagement, Peer review shortcomings.
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1544380