Sian Harris has made some interesting comments about current trends in scholarly publishing, including observations of what is happening to peer-review.
On peer-review (my bolding) one of the developments noted is:
Peer review is another interesting trend to watch. Different journals take different approaches to this. One trend is from blind to open peer review, where authors and reviewers know each other’s identity. Another topic for discussion is whether the lion’s share of peer review should go on pre-publication or post-publication. The journal PLOS One has an interesting approach to this, of deliberately only assessing papers for things like originality, accuracy and ethics but not making a judgement on how interesting the research is before publication. The discussion of the value of the research goes on afterwards.
There’s a related article, New Approach to Peer Review.
(Not that any of this is necessary for the Humanities, according to Larry Hurtado. Everything is just fine there. It’s only where those scientists have the ability to fabricate data that we find any problems, according to his ostrich perspective.)
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!