Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorButchard, Dorothy-
dc.contributor.authorRowberry, Simon-
dc.contributor.authorSquires, Claire-
dc.contributor.authorTasker, Gillian-
dc.contributor.editorRayner, S-
dc.contributor.editorLyons, R-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Peer review constitutes one of the more paradoxical elements of academic research and dissemination: it is common for academics to complain about unhelpful feedback from their latest review, but the process is simultaneously seen as one of the bedrocks of assuring the quality of research. It does not take long to find anecdotal evidence of the value or pitfalls of peer review in trade publications such as the Times Higher Education or The Chronicle of Higher Education. Asked to share her own ‘horror stories’ in peer review for the Times Higher Education, Susan Bassnett comments that ‘it seems like a fine idea for work submitted to a journal, publisher or funding body to be assessed anonymously by independent experts’, but fears peer review ‘has grown into a monster’ as a result of an increasing volume of work requiring review, with detrimental effects for both authors and reviewers. Such comments suggest an urgent need to reconsider review practices. However, it is rare to see a scholarly examination of the process, and this report sets out to address this by evaluating key aspects of academic discussion of peer review. The following report considers the diverse range of practices that constitute peer review in both publishing and institutional structures, examining the history of peer review, and evaluating how innovative alternative models aim to resolve pressures on the current system. It does so with a particular focus on peer review in the Arts and Humanities (in connection with the AHRC Academic Book of the Future project), while looking at wider disciplinary and publishing considerations. Peer review is an expansive topic, and our research has revealed a number of fruitful avenues for future evaluation which we have not been able to cover in detail here. These include the selection and crediting of reviewers, the role of peer review in creative practice, the advent of paid review platforms, and the use of metrics as an alternative means of quantifying research value and impact. In particular, our discussion of peer review for publications emphasises practice in scholarly journals, as that is largely where discussion in scholarly and other literature focuses. However, further primary investigation might consider equivalent issues in the field of monograph publishing. Given the parameters of our study, alongside an evolving environment for peer review, and our own wish to experiment with peer review modes, this report is offered for post-publication peer review. We encourage readers to submit comments and suggestions additional sources and references, and for new avenues of research.en_UK
dc.publisherUCL Press-
dc.relationButchard D, Rowberry S, Squires C & Tasker G (2017) Peer Review in Practice. In: Rayner S, Lyons R (ed.). Academic Book of the Future: BOOC, London: UCL Press.-
dc.rightsThe publisher has granted permission for use of this work in this Repository. Published in Academic Book of the Future: BOOC, ed. by S Rayner and R Lyons published by UCL Press:
dc.subjectpeer reviewen_UK
dc.subjectacademic publishingen_UK
dc.subjectscholarly communicationen_UK
dc.subjectjournals publishingen_UK
dc.subjectmonograph publishingen_UK
dc.titlePeer Review in Practiceen_UK
dc.typePart of book or chapter of booken_UK
dc.type.statusBook Chapter: author post-print (pre-copy editing)-
dc.citation.btitleAcademic Book of the Future: BOOC-
dc.description.notesThe article was previously published in beta version (see
dc.contributor.affiliationLiterature and Languages-
dc.contributor.affiliationCommunications, Media and Culture-
dc.contributor.affiliationEnglish Studies-
dc.contributor.affiliationEnglish Studies-
Appears in Collections:Literature and Languages Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Peer Review in Practice - BOOC Version.pdf1 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.