游客493对
Matthew Hodgkinson：
Should peer review process be conducted properly?
All research is essentially either aimed at consolidating/extending the existing knowledge or disrupting/overturning it. It is commonly accepted that publications of all research are endorsed through peer review process. However, academic community often neglects a significant discrepancy between consolidating research and disruptive research. For consolidating research, there are often many people working on the existing knowledge that fits to consolidating research. For disruptive research, there are also many people working on the existing knowledge that contradicts disruptive research. When a research is submitted, the journal usually requires author to define opposed reviewers. But this is unrealistic for disruptive research, because the author of disruptive research is unable to list all the advocates of the existing knowledge as the opposed reviewers.
Many journals assert that they strictly follow the publication ethics: decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope and content, but when a disruptive research is submitted, the editors(reviewers) will be accustomed to reject it by means of arguing “the existing knowledge is correct whereas the author’s newly proposed knowledge is wrong”. Even if the author finds the decision to be a bias and ask for appeal from the journal’s manager or publisher, the result is simply tough-- “the editor’s decision cannot be changed”. In fact, no few people witnesses how a disruptive research is baptized through peer review process, although most of people orally express appreciation of disruptive research.
2023-09-20 15:00
