Improving the peer review process: an examination of commonalities between scholarly societies and knowledge networks

Whilst peer review is the common form of scholarly refereeing, there are many differing aspects to this process. There is a view that the system is not without it’s faults and this has given rise to increasing discussion and examination of the process as a whole. Since the importance of peer review is based on the primary way in which quality control is asserted within the academic world, the concern is what impact this is having on an ever increasing diversity of scholarship, in particular, within and between science and engineering disciplines. The peer review process as is commonly understood is increasingly considered as a conservative approach which is failing to adequately deal with the challenges of assessing interdisciplinary research, publications and outputs.

[1]  W. Hall,et al.  A Biological Theory of Knowledge and Applications to Real World Organizations , 2005 .

[2]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[3]  Peter Suber.  Guide to the Open Access Movement , 2004 .

[4]  Alma Swan.  Modelling scholarly communication options: costs and benefits for universities , 2010 .

[5]  Susu Nousala,et al.  Emerging Autopoietic Communities - Scalability of Knowledge Transfer in Complex Systems , 2008, 2008 IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing.

[6]  Alfredo Estrade,et al.  The Virtual Journals of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics , 2010, D Lib Mag..

[7]  M. Sachs.  Objective Knowledge , 1974 .

[8]  Sabu John,et al.  Tacit Knowledge Management Networks and its Implication in Organisational Prosperity , 2004 .

[9]  Andrew Abbott,et al.  Chaos of disciplines , 2001 .

[10]  W. Hall.  Organizational Autopoiesis and Knowledge Management , 2003 .

[11]  Stanley N. Salthe,et al.  Development and Evolution: Complexity and Change in Biology , 1993 .

[12]  Pippa Smart,et al.  Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus and Future , 2011, Learn. Publ..

[13]  D. Harley.  Four Draft Working Papers: PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future , 2010 .

[14]  William P. Hall,et al.  Autopoiesis and Knowledge in Self-Sustaining Organizational Systems , 2010 .

[15]  L. Hargens,et al.  Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences. , 1990, JAMA.

[16]  Bill Kilpatrick,et al.  Building Knowledge Sharing Communities Using Team Expertise Access Maps , 2005 .

[17]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[18]  Drummond Rennie,et al.  Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication: The First International Congress , 1990 .

[19]  Susu Nousala,et al.  Tacit knowledge strategies and implementation in complex organisations: A Thai engineering company case study , 2006 .

[20]  C. J. King,et al.  SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION: ACADEMIC VALUES AND SUSTAINABLE MODELS , 2006 .

[21]  Susu Nousala,et al.  Managing Innovation Capability: A Case Study of Invincible Company Limited Thailand , 2005 .

[22]  Susu Nousala,et al.  Tacit Knowledge Networks: And their implementation in complex organizations , 2009 .

[23]  E. Knoll,et al.  The communities of scientists and journal peer review. , 1990, JAMA.

[24]  Suthida Jamsai-Whyte,et al.  The Value of Sustainable Knowledge Transfer Methods for SMEs, Utilizing Socio-Technical Networks and Complex Systems , 2010 .

[25]  I Chalmers,et al.  Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. , 1990, JAMA.