Repository logo
 

The peer review paradox - An Australian case study

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKingsley, Danny
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-19T12:17:23Z
dc.date.available2016-07-19T12:17:23Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.708
dc.identifier.isbn978-1-934272-24-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256773
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherOffice of Scholarly Communication, Cambridge University Library
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectpeer review
dc.subjectreward
dc.subjectscholarly communication
dc.subjectdisciplinary differences
dc.subjectrejection rates
dc.subjectfunding
dc.subjectconferences
dc.titleThe peer review paradox - An Australian case study
dc.typeWorking Paper
prism.publicationNameCITSA 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
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.17863/CAM.708

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Kingsley-2016-DiscussionPaper_PeerReviewParadox.pdf
Size:
123.16 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Discussion Paper
Licence
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
3.8 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Download

Collections

Scholarly Communication Collection