I.1. Ontological/Epistemological Priors

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Catherine Boone
London School of Economics
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:33 pm

Manipulating the Peer Review Process: Blog post

PostSat Dec 31, 2016 9:04 am

And why are we not talking about this?

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsc ... prevented/

In a contribution to the LSE Blog on The Impact of the Social Sciences, Sneha Kulkarni highlights issues that should concern us all. Inter alia, she flags problems inherent in the common practice of allowing authors to suggest reviewers.

Broadening the discussion to include the issue of peer review would surely change some of the dynamics of the DART process in Political Science.

Post Reply

Marcus Kreuzer
Villanova University
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:48 am

Re: Manipulating the Peer Review Process: Blog post

PostMon Jan 02, 2017 10:52 pm

Interesting link. It discusses how authors manipulate on occasion the review process and what journals are doing to address it. It also claims that such manipulations are one of the reasons why we see more and more journal retractions.

This raises the question of whether the peer review process should become part of DA-RT initiative. The peer review process arguably is the least transparent element of the larger research process. There are some reasons for this but as the Boone's link makes clear there is a lot of experimenting going in other fields.

The link also points to the increase number of retractions in various disciplines. It would be wrong to blame this exclusively on flaws in the journal review process. This also suggests that there is considerable room for improving the individual scholars' research transparency. It challenges the claim of various other posts who ask whether there even is a problem that DA-RT is trying to solve.

Post Reply