Peer Review Revised?

Last month, the New York Times published two articles that dealt with the changing nature of peer review.  The first one, published on August 16, discussed a real-time analysis of a mathematical proof on mathematics-related blogs and wikis.  The second one, published on August 23, presented the case of the Shakespeare Quarterly's recent experiment as it invited criticism, via the world wide web, on four articles submitted to the journal.

These two examples indicate that the traditional methods, and notion, of peer review are changing.  Traditionally, we rely on peer review as a sort of quality assurance policy.  Peer reviewed journals are the ones we want to use in research, because we trust that they have been vetted by authorities in the field.  However, the changing nature of publishing and communication seems to be making many people rethink the peer review process.

Politics, competition, and other issues often play a role in the peer review process, too, which is what these articles seem to be getting at.  Revising the peer review process could help alleviate these issues, but also introduce new ones that are not easily alleviated.  As a librarian, I can't foresee a radical change in the peer review process anytime soon, and I will not be changing the way I communicate the "peer review process" to students or select books/journals for the library.  However, these articles did make me realize that critically thinking about the peer review process, and the way we trust information, is always an interesting exercise.

I did a quick keyword search in Addison, just to see what sort of books we may have on the topic, and I found several recent ones that I might recommend, just for some more food for thought:

• Peer Review:  A Critical Inquiry, by David Schatz (2004)
• How Professors Think:  Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, by Michele Lamont (2009)
• Peer Review in Health Sciences, edited by Fiona Godlee (2003)