Comments on: The death of peer review

By: Spurious Tuples » Blog Archive » What do faculty know about what students know?

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:59:14 +0000

[...] fields? Articles in journals known for particularly rigorous standards of peer-review (unlike certain library science journals of late)? Or are “reputable” and “quality” just [...]

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:24:12 +0000

Dale, you raise the most important questions, including how we empower expertise in a new environment.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:55:32 +0000

I’m not commenting on the Annoyed Lib. I just can’t bring myself to care. (I mean, to care about that person.)

However, I am a reviewer for a journal in our fine profession (RUSQ). Is the journal perfect? No, it’s not.

But I think it’s a good journal and I think it adds to the knowledge about librarianship. I know that the peer review process works well there, as I’ve seen articles be greatly improved, authors encouraged, hypotheses tightened, and so on.

On the downside, the process is very slow. And there is always a shortage of reviewers who will do more than just say “publish as is” or “don’t publish”.

As a working library administrator, I find very little time to turn to the research literature. I do read a few journals, but not as many as I might.

I read a lot of news about libraries (and share interesting bits with colleagues), a little opinion, a even less research. Maybe I’m part of the problem with journals of research–that is, who is reading them?

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:48:56 +0000

Andrew, that’s an extreme title, but I go back to my statement. Did this approach fix peer review? Is it always broken in LibraryLand,or some of the time (Haworth being one strong possible example)?

It’s fun to burrow into the vortex. It’s so easy to be negative. It’s so much harder to hunker down and fix things.

By: andrew colgoni

andrew colgoni — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:46:53 +0000

I’m still not convinced about this ‘death of peer review’. I mean, the problem in the Journal of Access Services doesn’t even have anything to do with the peer review *process*. In fact, bypassing the process is what turned the journal into a joke.

Outside of the profession, peer review works remarkably well. If we are concerned about the quality of within our own profession, then 1) we need to confirm that this is in fact a problem, and 2) determine why. Are editorial boards setting standards too low?

Anyway, I’d love more clarification on this problem of the process.

By: Kathleen de la Peña

Kathleen de la Peña — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:50:40 +0000

Somewhere in the dim past I remember reading a funny editorial about “straw-value” press, but I can’t find it. It might even have been a John Berry editorial. Anyone out there have a citation?

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:10:08 +0000

Last year there were rumblings on this very blog about Haworth. So it’s interesting, Haworth took the bait — and through this action, reinforced popular opinion.

By: Librarian D.O.A.

Librarian D.O.A. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:58:26 +0000

You’re nothing like the AL at all. She/He/It may have wiped out the original AL blog, but the tone, the petulant nature of the posts…very memorable in a bad way– nah not you.

I agree the AL is likely a guy. Once “he” is unmasked it will be like one of the old wrestlers who aren’t so interesting anymore once they’re revealed to be a boring old bald guy.

By: Bill Drew

Bill Drew — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:39:02 +0000

You are much to serious to be the AL. the Annoyed Librarian may be someone we all know and respect. I do not and never have respected any thing published by Haworth. Third rate magazines from a third rate publisher.

By: zoe

zoe — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:34:18 +0000

If it were any other publisher besides Haworth I’d be truly shocked. However for some time now there have been many questions about how truly peer-reviewed Haworth journals are. Acquisition by T&F doesn’t seem to have changed that.