Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses

Citation

Calvert, P. (2001), "Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses", Online Information Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 406-421. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir.2001.25.6.406.4

It may be hard to imagine a whole book of 342 pages devoted solely to the subject of editorial peer review, but for anyone interested in publishing or scholarly communication this is an essential read. Based largely on a very thorough literature review, Weller’s text explores just about every imaginable aspect of this topic, from the manuscript and the causes of its acceptance and rejection, through the role of editorial boards, the authorship problem (i.e. just what constitutes authorship), the role of reviewers (which is central to the text, of course), reviewer biases, right up to the current electronic environment of peer review. The author has analysed numerous research papers, including the use of statistical studies, so that she can paint a very full picture of this aspect of scholarly communication.

For anyone interested in the use of new technologies, the key chapter in this book is on peer review in the electronic environment. Disappointingly, it is one of the shortest chapters in the book, though on reading it one can understand why. There have been several experiments that have used electronic peer review, or something close to it, yet it has not established favour with either scholars or publishers. Weller has examined models from different disciplines including medicine, psychology (Harnad’s well‐known Psycoloquy) and the Los Alamos preprint server in high‐energy physics. Usually the model involved “public” post‐publication review, though the definition of public varies from private to open communication. In most models, reviews and comments can be added to the original paper and in some cases the author will continue to amend the original as a result of suggestions and criticism received. She concludes that no solid, workable new model that replaces editorial peer‐review has yet emerged, but that in some cases post‐publication review has been added on top of the traditional process. She goes on to say that editors and publishers may find it hard to maintain the traditional model, though frankly even her own evidence does not point to this. Post‐publication review will most likely produce ever‐changing versions of documents, and this potentially confusing situation for scholars is actually a nightmare for information managers (especially cataloguers), yet Weller did not consider this.

This book is highly recommended to any scholar or publisher with the least interest in peer review. It is a nicely bound book at a good price. As already mentioned, the literature review, including references, is very thorough, and there is a good index.