The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process
The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
12.6
通讯作者：
Martin, Rene
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Suls, Jerry;Martin, Rene
几十年来，匿名同行评议一直是科学心理学研究传播的基石，只是偶尔受到质疑。然而，其他学科，如生物医学和物理学，发现传统的同行评议制度是不够的，并已开始测试和尝试替代做法。在这篇文章中，我们调查批评传统的同行评审制度，并描述了几种替代方案，以促进讨论和辩论。我们还考虑了为什么自然科学倾向于雇用更少的审稿人，并有较低的拒绝率比社会科学。我们的两个建议是，应该在心理学的各个层面开始认真讨论问题和同行评议的替代方案，研究沟通的科学应该是一个优先事项，心理学家作为其前卫的一部分，因为他们的相关实质性和方法论知识。
Anonymous peer review has served as the bedrock of research dissemination in scientific psychology for decades and has only sporadically been questioned. However, other disciplines, such as biomedicine and physics, have found the traditional peer-review system to be wanting and have begun to test and try alternative practices. In this article, we survey criticisms of the traditional peer-review system and describe several alternatives in the interests of facilitating discussion and debate. We also consider why the natural sciences tend to employ fewer reviewers and have lower rejection rates than do the social sciences. Our two recommendations are that a serious discussion of problems and alternatives to peer review should be started at all levels of psychology and that a science of research communication should be a priority, with psychologists as part of its advance guard because of their relevant substantive and methodological knowledge.