JLIS.it

Peer review: a process undergoing a required transformation

Mauro Guerrini — 2022-12-19

The peer review process is undergoing transformation; this raises a series of challenges, some of which are discussed by the authors of the articles of this issue. Is peer review really peer? Peer review is an activity not recognized for research evaluation. The choice of referees is by no means neutral; it must be contemplate the ethical aspects of the choice.

Global Trends in Knowledge Production and the Evolving Peer Review Process

Steven Witt — 2022-12-19

This essay thus seeks to provide further critique and clarity to the peer review process and the ways in which management of peer review is evolving. These changes occur within a context of massive growth in the knowledge production process: global trends, information technologies, and policies that encourage more people globally to take part in the research process. Associated with these global changes are stressors on the peer review process and particularly questions about who gets to be a peer reviewer and who has the right to produce knowledge under these processes. Less a formal review and analysis of peer review across LIS, this essay takes the form of an autoethnographic narrative that that seeks to draw upon the researcher’s personal observations, experience, and reflections to critically examine changes to the peer review system that are taking place.

Scholarly publishing and peer review in the Global South: the role of the reviewer

Peter Lor — 2022-12-19

Peer review is an integral part of contemporary scholarly publishing, especially journal publishing. Work submitted by scholars from all parts of the world is subjected to it. This includes submissions by scholars from the Global South, who wish to publish in “international” journals or in local journals which follow the same model. These authors may not be native English speakers and may be unfamiliar with the conventions of Western scholarship. Many of them conduct research and write their manuscripts under challenging circumstances. They may find it difficult to comply with the requirements of the journals to which they submit their articles. Their manuscripts quite often pose challenges to the peer reviewers. The purpose of this article is to provide some background on scholarly publishing in the Global South and the challenges those colleagues face, and to outline what this may mean for the role of the reviewer.

Peer review ethics in Iranian LIS scholarly journals: a comparison between views of reviewers and authors

Rahmatollah Fattahi — 2022-12-19

Peer review is one of the most efficient ways to ensure the quality of papers for possible publication in scholarly journals. However, the process of peer review is not free of bias and disorders. Many reviewers are unaware of how their attitudes towards the evaluation of scholarly papers may violate Peer Review Ethics (PRE). This paper attempts to analyze the different ethical issues influencing the job of reviewing. The research sample for this study included 7 Iranian library and information journals, 124 Iranian peer reviewers, and 34 authors. Peer reviewers and authors were asked to evaluate the most important ethical elements of peer review in Iranian LIS journals through two different questionnaires based on Rajabali Beglou et al. (2019) research.

Findings showed that there was no difference among authors and reviewers in terms of gender in most PRE elements. Also, the level of experience of the authors was not significant in terms of understanding and acceptance of the PRE among reviewers and authors. However, review experiences regarding some PRE elements were significant in respondents’ viewpoints. The experiences reviewers had already gained were influential on their views about PRE. In addition, results showed that there were significant differences among reviewers and authors about the PRE elements in LIS journals. Authorship experiences had not effect on the PRE elements and the dual role of peer reviewing and authorship had no impact on their views.

Towards peer review as a group engagement

Andrea Bonaccorsi — 2022-12-19

I discuss from an economic perspective two of the most recent suggestions to reform the peer review system: (a) payment to referees; (b) ex post peer review. I show that strong economic arguments militate against these ideas.

With respect to payment to referees I use results from the economic analysis of prosocial behavior and the private production of public goods, which show that the supply of monetary incentives has the paradoxical effect of reducing the willingness of agents to collaborate, insofar as they substitute intrincic motivation with extrinsic motivation.

With respect to ex post peer review, I show that it fails to offer sufficient incentives to researchers, since it is anonymous, depersonalized, and weak in its marginal impact on publishing decisions. I take this argument to criticize the lack of theorizing, in the side of radical proponents of Open access, about the conditions for transition from the subscription model to the Open model. It is this lack of critical attention to economic arguments that has led to the unintended but dramatic outcome of a net increase in the cost of scientific publishing, as documented in very recent papers.

Finally, I advance a proposal for admitting payments to referees, but not as individuals but as groups of researchers. I offer this idea to open discussion.

Open peer review: the point of view of scientific journal editors

Ernest Abadal — 2022-12-19

Academic journals have been incorporating several elements of open science: open access (since 2000), later, the deposit of research data of the articles published, the dissemination of preprints before the publication of the paper and, finally, the open peer review (OPR). While open access is well-established and the inclusion of research data is increasingly widespread, the OPR is just at the beginning of its incorporation as a real alternative to the double-blind model, which is the most widespread and consolidated.

The objective of our article is to analyse the opinion of the editors of Spanish scientific journals about the advantages and disadvantages or barriers for the implementation of the OPR. This is a qualitative study that has been carried out from the open answers of a questionnaire sent to the 1875 editors of the Spanish academic journals that appear in the database Dulcinea and that obtained a response of 22.4%. Regarding the limitations, the study is based on the opinions and experience of the editors of Spanish scientific journals, which are mostly published by academic institutions and are in the field of social sciences and humanities.

The results focus on delving into the advantages and disadvantages. Among the encouraging factors, the editors point out that to have open reports is very useful for the scientific community, that it recognizes the role of the reviewer, makes it possible to control the arbitrariness of some reviewers, and that it promotes the reviewer-author dialogue. The main barriers discussed are the following: a possible lack of objectivity and rigor, resistance to change a consolidated system (“double-blind”), knowing the author benefits established authors and harms novices, more difficulties for finding reviewers, increases costs and can lengthen the review process.

Open peer review: some considerations on the selection and management of reviewers

Andrea Capaccioni — 2022-12-19

Open peer review (OPR) is a type of review that has long since made space alongside the more well-known single-blind and double-blind peer reviews. Despite this, we still do not have a shared definition by the scientific community and publishers. The purpose of this paper is to offer some reflections on the selection of reviewers in OPR, a process that in its current configuration is traced back to the 19th century. After a brief overview of the best-known definitions of open peer review, the paper continues with an analysis of some aspects of reviewer selection carried out with the help of data from a recent survey.

Gender equality in library science and book history Italian journals: a focus on boards, authors and peer-reviewers

Valentina Sonzini — 2022-12-19

The presence of women in Italian open access journals in library science and book history has never been subject to quantitative evaluations. As in the case of other areas in the humanities, the study of the number of women on the boards and as authors has taken second place to analyses of gender positioning in academic careers. Starting from the data entered into Wikidata by the project "Riviste di biblioteconomia" managed by the Wikidata Group for Museums, Archives and Libraries, the contribution presents a focus on AIB Studi, Bibliothecae.it and JLIS.it regarding the gender balance in the scientific committees and board and the number of female contributors. In conclusion, a mention concerns the small number of articles from foreign countries, in particular from Africa and South-East Asia.

Peer review in research assessment and data analysis of Italian publications in SSD M-STO/08 (Archival science, bibliography, library science)

Rossana Morriello — 2022-12-19

Since the introduction of research assessment systems at institutional level in the 1980s, the ongoing debate on the roles and functions of peer review and bibliometrics has been vivid and lively. In the first part of the article, the main lines over time of this debate are traced, and a reflection on the epistemic functions of peer review and citations is proposed. In Italy, the first research assessment exercise (VTR) was based on peer review only, while the following ones (VQR) were based on different methods for bibliometric disciplines and non-bibliometric disciplines, namely bibliometric indicators and peer review. Starting from a data analysis on Italian publications, and using as a sample data from M-STO/08 (Archival science, bibliography and library science) area, the essay shows some trends and changes in publication habits in HSS. Conclusions open a perspective on revitalization of peer review as a solid qualitative method for research assessment.

The role of peer review in the evaluation of research in Italy. Some remarks on the evaluation of PRINs

Maurizio Vivarelli — 2022-12-19

This contribution proposes some remarks on the evaluation and financing mechanisms of PRINs – Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale, promoted in Italy by the MUR - Ministry of University and Research, in the context of the critical issues and evolution prospects of peer review, of which a summary state of the art is presented. Starting from the partial and incomplete data made available on the MUR website dedicated to PRINs, are listed and examined the projects financed for the current disciplinary sector M-STO/08 (Archival Science, Bibliography and Librarianship), in the years between 1996 and 2020, and those included in other disciplinary areas that have as their subject matters related to the contents of the academic field M-STO/08.

Firenze University Press: the peer review policy of an Italian academic publisher. Interview with Fulvio Guatelli by Alessia Papa

Fulvio Guatelli — 2022-12-19

Peer review evaluates the originality and quality of a scientific work, through the judgment of a peer group, in order to preserve scientific authority and prevent the publication of poor quality manuscripts. Fulvio Guatelli, director of the Firenze University Press (FUP), one of the most innovative realities in the scientific field and one of the first publishing houses to have brought the peer review process to Italy, answers eight questions. FUP pays considerable attention to editorial practices; the FUP Scientific Cloud for Books project allows the systematic description, through a "cloud" of metadata, of all aspects of the scientific book (authorship, evaluation process, dissemination tools and access methods), in order to contribute to its enhancement and place it in the wake of scientific journals. FUP also aims at the dissemination of a qualitatively valid science, supporting the reviewers through collaborations, such as ReviewerCredits, which certify and reward their work. Initiatives that testify to the continuous evolution and gradual refinement process of peer review in the context of today's scientific community.

This issue is dedicated to Luigi Balsamo

Editorial Board — 2022-12-19

Luigi Balsamo was a librarian, a bibliographical superintendent, an AIB member, a professor of Bibliography, the editor of "La Bibliofilia", and an important international personality, especially in the Anglo-Saxon and Iberian area, author of numerous writings on public libraries and the history of books, including 'La bibliografia. Storia di una tradizione' (translated both in English and in Spanish). Less well known is his interest in poetry, which he cultivated from his youth. The liryc 'Autumn' is part of an unpublished collection, entirely private and hitherto jealously guarded within the family circle.