Is the peer review process flawed?
This has been the hot grossing topic of the research community. I have been reading numerous articles and opinions by authors worldwide embossing on the flaws cropping in the peer review process. Did the traditional widely-used process had loopholes since inception or has it lost its significance with the emerging number of researches?
Actually the issue of concern is the growing percentage of paper rejection by many leading journals. With the rapidly growing number of submissions, the journal editors and peers are bound to reject quality studies to focus on relevancy and the journal scope. I too believe that many quality articles are not getting the deserved acknowledgement but at the same time it is also true that these rejections are paving way for fresh publishing grounds and enhanced researches.
What would you have to say about this? Do share your suggestions.
steve, 
Jonna, 
Zac, and 1 other are discussing. 
Discuss your Dissertation 
edward99 6:03 am on January 20, 2015 Permalink |
greetings!
though i believe peer review is an essential element of paper publishing, as a researcher it gets frustrating at times when a good quality paper gets rejected. i am really not questioning the importance of the process but yes, the process needs to be efficient. rejection may not necessarily facilitate enhanced research. what if it demotivates researchers?
Zac 12:36 pm on January 21, 2015 Permalink |
I completely go with what Edward said- rejection does demotivates the author. Facing a rejection from a journal after putting in immense hard work, time and money seems like a big Failure in Life. Every quality work deserves a better platform to showcase itself.
Jonna 4:20 am on January 22, 2015 Permalink |
In my suggestion, peer review process is not flawed, it is just facing the drawbacks of being a traditional system. Like everything in the world, peer review too needs a change with the dynamic environment. It was, and to some extend it still is a perfect system to eliminate inappropriate or irrelevant studies. The only difference to contemporary scenario is the growing percentage of researches being held and the even more increasing rate of quality studies.
With what we are dealing today, I think the process should be fine-tuned with inclusion of multiple quality check criteria and test variables that can be called the Measures of Quality. And with that, the only most-preferred and running measure, being the Citation count, should be significantly given less importance. There is always a chance of improvement and i believe this would incorporate very soon.
steve 5:15 am on January 22, 2015 Permalink |
i agree with Jonna. However traditional, this system does maintain quality of journals. But i do believe that the system needs to change in certain ways.Researches are putting in a lot of hardwork and that should definitely be given credit. Journals must incorporate additional quality check measures and ensure that the system is justified and fair.