IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/cshedu/qt10w8q9c6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Four Draft Working Papers: PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future

Author

Listed:
  • Harley, Diane, Ph.D., Principal Investigator and Sophia Krzys Acord

Abstract

As part of its Andrew W. Mellon Foundation-funded Future of Scholarly Communication Project, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) has hosted two meetings to explore how peer review relates to scholarly communication and academic values. In preparation for an April 2010 workshop, four working papers were developed and circulated. They are presented as drafts here. (The proceedings from the April 2010 meeting will be published at a future date.) The topics covered include assessing the myriad forms peer review takes in the academy, which forms of peer review are used for which specific academic purposes (e.g., tenure and promotion, publishing, extramural funding, national and international stature), the considerable costs to universities in subsidizing the entire peer review process through faculty salaries, and the perception that, although peer review represents the best available system, there are nonetheless a multitude of problems with it, including its inherent conservatism. The topics of the working papers are: (1) Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Norms, Complaints, and Costs, (2) New Models of Peer Review: Repositories, Open Peer Review, and Post Publication Metrics, (3) Open Access: Green OA, Gold OA, and University Resolutions, and (4) Creating New Publishing and Peer Review Models: Scholarly Societies, Presses, Libraries, Commercial Publishers, and Other Stakeholders. Mirroring our work published in Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines (Harley et al. 2010), we conclude that there is a need for a more nuanced academic reward system that is less dependent on citation metrics, slavish adherence to marquee journals and university presses, and the growing tendency of institutions to outsource assessment of scholarship to such proxies. Such a need is made more urgent given the challenges to institutional review of assessing interdisciplinary scholarship, new hybrid disciplines, the rise of heavily computational sub-branches of disciplines, the development of new online forms of edition-making and collaborative curation for community resource use, large-scale collaborations, and multiple authorship. Compounding the problem further is the insidious and destructive “trickle down†of tenure and promotion requirements from elite research universities to less competitive institutions and the mounting pressure from governments, often unrealistic, on scholars in developed and emerging economies alike to publish their research in the most select outlets. The overall global effect is a growing glut of low-quality publications that strains the efficient and effective practice of peer review, legitimate academic publishing endeavors, and library acquisition budgets. More nuanced and capacious tenure and promotion criteria at research universities might lead to a neutralization of the currently unsustainable publishing “arms race.â€

Suggested Citation

  • Harley, Diane, Ph.D., Principal Investigator and Sophia Krzys Acord, 2010. "Four Draft Working Papers: PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt10w8q9c6, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:cshedu:qt10w8q9c6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/10w8q9c6.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Chapman & Peter Tulip, 2008. "International Dimensions in the Financing of Higher Education," CEPR Discussion Papers 574, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
    2. Nicholas Barr, 2004. "Higher Education Funding," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 264-283, Summer.
    3. Douglass, John Aubrey & Keeling, Ruth, 2008. "The Big Curve: Trends in University Fees and Financing in the EU and US," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt6sr3n6km, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Education;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:cshedu:qt10w8q9c6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/cshe/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.