Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Emily RainsfordORCiD
This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by University of Wollongong, 2022.
For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.
Peer review is an essential part of academic publishing, yet many authors, reviewers, and editors have reportedly encountered problems with the review process. Some scholars view peer-review as a necessary process for the advancement of science, while other scholars argue that for many publishers and journals, both authors and reviewers are being exploited. The aim of this commentary is two-fold. First, to provide a narrative review of current perspectives and available research on the peer-review process to date, and second, to summarise potential solutions elicited from scholars on Twitter. A review of the literature identified several problems with peer-review including publication delays, an over reliance on a narrow pool of reviewers, threats to anonymity, perceived exploitation, as well as overworked editors. Recommendations to redress these issues that emerged from scholars on Twitter suggested publishers, journals, their editors and associate editors, universities, individual academics and their communities all have a role to play towards creating an equitable and fair system. This commentary aims to ignite conversations about improving the peer-review process.
Author(s): Allen KA, Reardon J, Lu Y, Smith DV, Rainsford E, Walsh L
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Year: 2022
Volume: 19
Issue: 3
Online publication date: 25/07/2022
Acceptance date: 06/07/2022
Date deposited: 06/07/2022
ISSN (electronic): 1449-9789
Publisher: University of Wollongong
URL: https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol19/iss3/02
ePrints DOI: 10.57711/44ce-cc55
