The peer review paradox - An Australian case study
View / Open Files
Authors
Kingsley, Danny
Publication Date
2007Journal Title
CITSA 2007/CCCT 2007: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS : INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTING, COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, VOL III, POST-CONFERENCE ISSUE, PROCEEDINGS
ISBN
978-1-934272-24-4
Publisher
Office of Scholarly Communication, Cambridge University Library
Language
English
Type
Working Paper
This Version
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Kingsley, D. (2007). The peer review paradox - An Australian case study. CITSA 2007/CCCT 2007: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS : INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTING, COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, VOL III, POST-CONFERENCE ISSUE, PROCEEDINGS https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708
Abstract
This paper discusses the results of a series of 42 interviews with Chemists, Computer Scientists and Sociologists conducted in 2006-2007 at two Australian universities. All academics perform peer review with later career researcher usually taking a greater load. The amount and type of review undertaken differs between disciplines. In general, review of journal articles and conference papers is unpaid work although reviewing books (a much larger task) often results in at least an offer of a free book from the publishers. Reviewing of grant proposals and theses does attract an honorarium, but these are insignificant amounts. Most interviewees indicated that reviewing is part of what is expected in academia, and that it offers the benefit of early access to new research results. The competing requirements of an academic’s peer group and the institution at which they work has meant a sharp increase in the number of papers published over the past decade. This in turn has made finding referees difficult, and the fact the work goes unrecognised by the performance measurement process adds to the problem. The claim of certain conferences that their papers are refereed is met with some cynicism, even in Computer Science, which normally uses conferences as its main channel of peer reviewed communication. Overall these findings open the question of whether the amount of effort expended in peer review is justified.
Keywords
peer review, reward, scholarly communication, disciplinary differences, rejection rates, funding, conferences
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.708
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk