Open AccessProposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography
Author(s) -
Henning Bergenholtz,
Rufus H. Gouws
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
hermes
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.759
H-Index - 7
eISSN - 1903-1785
pISSN - 0904-1699
DOI - 10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22950
Subject(s) - lexicography , peer review , technical peer review , publishing , scientific writing , process (computing) , quality (philosophy) , computer science , scientific publishing , lexicographical order , public relations , engineering ethics , political science , psychology , linguistics , law , epistemology , engineering , philosophy , mathematics , combinatorics , operating system
In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author.