z-logo
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.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here