Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Workflow - Goals of Peer Review (view source)
Revision as of 22:49, 28 January 2020
, 22:49, 28 January 2020no edit summary
|Description=Ideally, a workflow needs to clearly articulate the goals of its peer-review process. In the traditional workflow, the answer to this question is far from obvious. While some reviewers review submissions for pursuitworthiness, others review for acceptability, yet others do both.[[CiteRef::Lee (2015)]] As a result, it is often unclear whether the content of published articles is to be taken as [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] by the respective community or as or merely as considered [[Theory Pursuit|pursuitworthy]] by the editors and reviewers? As noted by Shaw and Barseghyan,
<blockquote>Many of our practices suggest that it might be the former. For example, in Naomi Oreskes’ widely cited study on the consensus on climate change, she uses the content found in publications as a measure of acceptance.[[CiteRef::Oreskes (2004)]] Moreover, many reviews reject papers due to their purported flaws suggesting that they should not be published because they are not acceptable. [[CiteRef::Byrne (2000)]] Yet, at other times, the fact that something was published is only taken to mean that it was considered to be worthy of further attention. Philosophers, for example, will be acutely familiar with this view: no one reads the newest paper on realism in Philosophy of Science to see what the community believes about realism. They merely search for stimulating and interesting ideas.[[CiteRef::Shaw and Barseghyan (2019)|p. 3]]</blockquote>
Thus, it is vital to clearly state the goals of the peer-review process.
