Peer Review and Open Access

Stevan Harnad harnad at
Mon Nov 29 16:29:54 EST 2004

    Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry
    Series: Issues in Academic Ethics
    By David Shatz 	
	Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
	0-7425-1435-8 	November 28, 2004 	264pp^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=074251434X

Peer review is the process by which submissions to journals and 
presses are evaluated with regard to suitability for publication. 
Armed with the results of numerous empirical studies, critics have 
leveled a variety of harsh charges against peer review such as: 
reviewers and editors are biased toward authors from prestigious 
institutions, peer review is biased toward established ideas, and it 
does a poor job of detecting errors and fraud.

While an immense literature has sprouted on peer review in the 
sciences and social sciences, Peer Review is the first book-length, 
wide-ranging study of peer review that utilizes methods and resources 
of contemporary philosophy. Its six chapters cover the following 
topics: the tension between peer review and the liberal notion that 
truth emerges when ideas proliferate in the marketplace of ideas; 
arguments for and against blind review of submissions; the alleged 
conservatism of peer review; the anomalous nature of book reviewing; 
the status of non-peer-reviewed publications, such as invited articles 
or Internet publications, in tenure and promotion cases; and the 
future of peer review in the age of the Internet. The author has also 
included several key readings about peer review.

About The Author
David Shatz is professor of philosophy at Yeshiva University. He has 
published articles and reviews in the fields of epistemology, free 
will, philosophy of religion, medical ethics, medieval Jewish 
philosophy, and contemporary Jewish philosophy.

          o Introduction
          o Peer Review and the Marketplace of Ideas
          o Bias and Anonymity in the Peer Review Process
          o Is Peer Review Inherently Conservative? Should It Be?
          o Peerless Review: The Strange Case of Book Reviews
          o What Should Count?
          o Where Do We Go From Here? Peer Review in the Age of the 
    * Supplementary Essays
          o Ethics and Manuscript Reviewing
            Richard T. De George and Fred Woodward 
          o Why Be My Colleague's Keeper? Moral Justifications for 
            Peer Review 
            Joe Cain 
          o Peer Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate 
            of Published Articles, Submitted Again
            Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci 
            [Behavioral & Brain Sciences. 1982 Jun Vol 5(2) 187-255]
          o No Bias, No Merit: The Case Against Blind Submission
            Stanley Fish 
          o Fish on Blind Submission
            Jeffrey Skoblow 
          o Reply to Skoblow
            Stanley Fish 
          o Revelation: a Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies
            Alan Sokal 
          o The Invisible Hand of Peer Review
            Steven J. Harnad 

More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list