I often find myself re-reading this short piece about what peer review was like in the 1860s. A reviewer was someone who helped improve a paper through a collegial, interactive process rather than rejecting it with a withering, anonymous comment. physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.…
The great benefit of the more formalized system we have today is that it is more impartial, and has helped turn science into less of an old boys' network. But it is also clear that something has been lost.
The problem with reducing bias by formalizing the review process is that it pushes the bias to other parts of the publication pipeline where it is less observable and harder to mitigate.
Better connected authors can:
–Avail of informal, constructive peer review *before* formal review
–Better jump through the hoops required by the ritualized (sometimes years-long) review process
–Better publicize the paper while under review, increasing its impact once published.
–Avail of informal, constructive peer review *before* formal review
–Better jump through the hoops required by the ritualized (sometimes years-long) review process
–Better publicize the paper while under review, increasing its impact once published.
I don't think we should go back to the 1860s model. But we should make peer review more constructive. We could also build in an explicit discussion of many types of reviewer biases as part of the review process itself instead of assuming that anonymity solves the problem.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
