Several Carleton University professors said they disagreed with an argument recently put forth in the Ottawa Citizen by Jackson Doughart, a graduate student at Queen’s University, who claimed the peer review process in academic publications is flawed.
Doughart said the major issue with the process is that it only deems some arguments as acceptable.
“The popular understanding of this procedure is that peer review is a kind of fact- and citation-checking process, designed to ensure that the author has not fabricated evidence or failed to observe the standards of scholarship,” Doughart wrote in the Citizen.
“But peer review also involves vetting the argument being presented in the paper, ostensibly to ensure that the readers of the publication are not subject to a ‘bad’ argument, as determined by the reviewers.”
James Milner, an associate professor of political science, said although the process has several pitfalls, he disagreed with Doughart’s argument.
While the system has its issues, it remains the highest level of academic publishing currently available, according to Milner.
He said there are three main problems with the process, including the added time it takes for academic works to be published, the opportunity for bias, and that the process “is geared towards revisions.”
Milner said when reviewing, one may feel he or she needs to critique the paper being scrutinized, regardless of its quality.
Paul Mkandawire, an assistant professor of human rights, said the peer review process is a good one, but described it as “rough” and “brutal.”
“It is not about controlling information, but about reviewing it,” he said. “When a new drug is developed, it is tested before going to market. Likewise, new knowledge needs to be reviewed.”
Mkandawire said there are issues with the process, but it has improved in recent years.
For example, most journals now offer the option for scholars to exclude certain people from reviewing their work, according to Mkandawire.
Alfonso Abizaid, a neuroscience professor and editor of Frontiers in Neuroscience, which publishes “community-driven journals,” said his publication is open-review style, meaning reviewers’ names are revealed at the end of the process.
Most publications have blind reviews, in which academics do not know who reviews their work, nor do the reviewers know the author of the paper they are reading. Having open-reviews allow for transparency, according to Abizaid.
There may be an assumption that Doughart’s claims may be more applicable in the social sciences, Abizaid said.
“The social sciences are still sciences,” he said. “Research is conducted through a scientific method.”
