Premium
Back to the future: (re)turning from peer review to peer engagement
Author(s) -
Kennison Rebecca
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
learned publishing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.06
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1741-4857
pISSN - 0953-1513
DOI - 10.1002/leap.1001
Subject(s) - peer review , scholarship , judgement , key (lock) , process (computing) , technical peer review , quality (philosophy) , field (mathematics) , public relations , work (physics) , peer to peer , service (business) , computer science , sociology , political science , world wide web , business , engineering , epistemology , computer security , law , marketing , mechanical engineering , philosophy , mathematics , pure mathematics , operating system
Key points Scholarly communication – with the exception of traditional (e.g. blind and double‐blind) peer review – prizes the open exchange of ideas. The aim of peer review should be engagement, not judgement. Reviews that improve the quality of a work and thus advance the field are not merely service to the community, but contributions to existing scholarship, and need to be rewarded accordingly; an open and transparent review process is the first step in enabling such reviews to be properly recognized.