![]() While some currently argue that ‘safeguarding the scientific integrity of published articles’ is one of peer review’s core responsibilities, others argue that the system was never designed, nor meant to do so. However, the expectation and ability of the peer review system to detect fraudulent and erroneous research is contentious and has developed and changed over time. The system of peer reviewing research papers in particular has long been central to these notions of self-regulation. ![]() Sociologists of science in the tradition of Merton assumed that any form of research misconduct would sooner or later come to light due to scientists’ motivation to challenge competing knowledge claims via the peer review system, replication studies, or the presence of a whistle-blower, at least in as far as misconduct involves the misrepresentation of the research process. It has long been assumed that misconduct could hardly occur in the sciences due to well-established self-regulating mechanisms. Ī key issue in the debate on scientific integrity has been the extent to which processes of institutional self-regulation are able to track and prevent misconduct (e.g. Concerned scientists as well as policymakers increasingly express their worry about data manipulation, plagiarism, or questionable research practices that affect the functioning of science. This rising concern has become obvious in the media, in policy initiatives, as well as in scientific literature. Due to a perceived increase in scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some claim the publication system, or even science in general, to be in crisis. Recently, there has been heated debate on the quality, credibility and integrity of scientific literature. We pay detailed attention to the emergence of the expectation that peer review can maintain ‘the integrity of science’s published record’, demonstrating that this leads to tensions in the academic debate about the responsibilities and abilities of the peer review system. Finally, we give a systematisation of the range of discussed peer review forms. We analyse the rationale for developing new review forms and discuss how they have been implemented in the current system. We describe the emergence of current peer review forms by reviewing the scientific literature on peer review and by adding recent developments based on information from editors and publishers. At present, there is a clear need for a systematic analysis of peer review forms and the concerns underpinning them, especially considering a wave of experimentation fuelled by internet technologies and their promise to improve research integrity and reporting. In addition, peer review currently comes in a wide variety of forms, developed in the expectation they can address specific problems and concerns in science publishing. However, the allocation of responsibility for integrity to the peer review system is fairly recent and remains controversial. Among various mechanisms, the peer review system in particular is considered an essential gatekeeper of both quality and sometimes even integrity in science. A key concern in this debate has been the extent to which science is capable of self-regulation. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed science to be in a state of crisis. The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |