Come si valuta la qualità nella Repubblica della Scienza? Una riflessione sul concetto di peer review

Peer reviewing is often called for as an essential divide between scientific knowledge and bare opinion. In general terms, it is an evaluation tool consisting in the formula through which an academic submits a text to the opinion of other academics (the so-called “peers”) who state its legitimacy; as a technical term, it amounts to the specific evaluation process that comes before publication on a scientific journal, a presentation’s approval to a conference or funding and grant allocation by funding agencies. In the abstract, peer review is required for appraising the quality of knowledge while it helps assuring its truthfulness and reputation; significantly, in the current transition between print and digital era, peer review itself is evoked as an element of continuity with the past and as a guarantee of scientific quality: while technology continuously upgrades, it is claimed, the knowledge validation process remains the same. Actually, it is one of the engines propelling research funding: as a filter by which it is decided whether to publish a scientific result, it influences both recruitment and career in the Republic of Science phaenomenon (that is, both in the academia and within research institutions), and public and private research funding. In practice, it often leaves room for abuses and frauds, allowing the darkest exertion of academic power. It may be for these reasons that peer review is acknowledged as the distinguishing feature of the modern academic system and, although legally unbinding, not only it is embraced (as a tool of the trade) by generations of scholars, but also it is very often deemed as the establishing and distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge. In the following pages I will examine the current praxis of peer review, to meditate then on the evolution and the future of this tool and, eventually, I will cast a glance at the historical and technological framework in which it first came to light. Il peer reviewing e spesso invocato come essenziale linea di demarcazione tra sapere scientifico e semplice opinione. Inteso in senso generico, esso e una forma di valutazione che consiste nella procedura tramite la quale un accademico sottopone un testo al giudizio di altri accademici (i cosiddetti “pari”) che ne stabiliscono la validita; come termine tecnico, corrisponde allo specifico processo di valutazione che precede la pubblicazione su una rivista scientifica, l'accettazione di una presentazione a una conferenza o l'assegnazione di fondi da parte di agenzie di finanziamento. Ma come si e definito il processo di accreditamento del sapere ancora oggi in vigore? Le tre sezioni in cui si articola questo lavoro sono dedicate: a) a considerare le diverse modalita in cui il concetto di peer review e stato declinato in epoca recente; b) a suggerire nuovi possibili modelli di peer review alla luce delle trasformazioni tecnologiche (la diffusione di Internet e del Web) che stanno rivoluzionando la pratica della comunicazione scientifica; e infine c) a ricostruire come e nato l'attuale processo di validazione della scienza, quali idee e tecnologie vi stanno alla base.