Peer review in the fields of philosophy and moral philosophy in Spain. Beliefs and debates about its consolidation, its suitability, and its ideal type
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2024.209Keywords:
peer review, scientific publication, philosophy, moral philosophy, integrityAbstract
Little is known about philosophers’ attitudes towards peer reviewing and how they deal with this system aimed at regulating and improving the quality of scientific publications. In fields such as philosophy, where the tendency is to discuss ideas rather than facts, it is interesting to ask whether this procedure is widely accepted and internalized by the research community. In order to answer this question, the present study, conducted with researchers in the fields of philosophy and moral philosophy in Spain, uses a methodology based on three cornerstones consisting of a survey, a debate carried out at the annual meeting of a scientific society and in-depth interviews. The results show that 99% of them believe that this is a widespread procedure within their field. However, the qualitative part of the study also reveals several doubts about the extent to which a consolidated peer review culture has actually been embraced by researchers. Nevertheless, 90% of them have a positive opinion regarding peer review as a suitable way of assessing the quality of publications, although potential deviations from the ideal are also observed when, for example, it is deemed to be influenced by bias or other motivations. Finally, the study reveals a clear preference, by 87% of the researchers, for the double-blind method and a certain lack of familiarity with other types of review.
References
Atkinson, M. (1994). Regulation of science by peer review. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 25(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(94)90025-6
Atkinson, M. (2001). Peer review culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review?. Science, 342(6154), 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Boletín Oficial del Estado [BOE]. (2005). APÉNDICE. Criterios que debe reunir un medio de difusión de la investigación (revista, libro, actas de congreso) para que las aportaciones que en él se incluyan puedan ser consideradas «de impacto». 266. Noviembre 2005. Boletín Oficial del Estado. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2005/11/07/pdfs/A36470-36476.pdf
Bornmann, L. (2011). Peer review and bibliometric: potentials and problems. En J. C. Shin, R., Toutkoushian, & U Teichler (Eds.), University rankings (pp. 145-164). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_8
Campanario, J. M. (2002). El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25(3), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2002.v25.i3.107
Clarke & Esposito. (2019). The Value of Peer Review. Perceptions from the Hematology Community. A Report Commissioned by the American Society of Hematology. Clarke & Esposito. https://www.ce-strategy.com/2019/04/the-value-of-peer-review/
Corlett, J. A. (2005). Ethical issues in journal peer-review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2(4), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-005-9001-1
Coslado, M. A., Lacunza, I., y Ros G. (2011). Evaluación de la calidad de revistas científicas españolas: análisis de sus procesos de revisión. El profesional de la información, 20(2), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2011.mar.05
Couzin, J. (2006). ...And how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors. Science, 311(5757), 23-24. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.311.5757.23
Daniel, H.-D., Mittag, S., & Bornmann L. (2007). The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In A. Cavalli (Ed.), Quality assessment for higher education in Europe (pp. 71-82). London: Portland Press.
Das, A. K. (2016). Peer review for scientific manuscripts: emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72(2), 172-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014
de Matos Cardoso, M. M. T. (2011). El peer review de las revistas científicas en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales: políticas y prácticas editoriales declaradas. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 34(2), 141-164. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2011.2.796
Delgado López-Cózar, E., Ruiz-Pérez R., y Jiménez-Contreras E. (2006). La edición de revistas científicas directrices, criterios y modelos de evaluación. Presencia, 4. https://www.revistacomunicar.com/pdf/documentos/2011-04-Delgado.pdf
Feenstra, R. A., y Teira, D. (2023). El acceso abierto y el futuro de la filosofía en España. Revista de Hispanismo Filosófico, 28, 121-135.
Feenstra, R. A., & Delgado López‐Cózar, E. (2022). Philosophers' perceptions of pay to publish and open access in Spain: Books versus journals, more than a financial dilemma. Learned Publishing, 35(2), 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1426
Feenstra, R. A., Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Pallarés-Domínguez, D. (2021). Research misconduct in the fields of ethics and philosophy: researchers’ perceptions in Spain. Science and engineering ethics, 27(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w
Fonseca-Mora, M. C., Tur-Viñes, V., y Gutiérrez-San Miguel B. (2014). Ética y revistas científicas españolas de Comunicación, Educación y Psicología: la percepción editora. Revista española de documentación científica, 37(4), e065-e065. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1151
Grainger, D. W. (2007). Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28(34), 5199-5203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004
Haslanger, S. (2009). Preliminary Report of the Survey on Publishing in Philosophy, APA Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerPRSPP.pdf
Heesen, R., &, Bright, L. K. (2020). Is peer review a good idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635-663. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029
Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA, 263(10), 1438-1441. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6, 63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
Jubb, M. (2016). Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1008
Karhulahti, V. M., & Backe, H. J. (2021). Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4
Katzav, J., & Vaesen, K. (2017). Pluralism and Peer Review in Philosophy. Philosophers’ Imprint, 17(19), 1-20. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0017.019
Lee, C. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Social biases and solutions for procedural objectivity. Hypatia, 26(2), 352-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01178.x
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, (2023). Estrategia Nacional de Ciencia Abierta (ENCA) 2023-207. Disponible en: https://www.ciencia.gob.es/Estrategias-y-Planes/Estrategias/ENCA.html
Mulligan, A., L. Hall, & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
Newton, D. P. (2010). Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors. Accountability in Research, 17(3), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791945
Publons. (2018). Global State Of Peer Review. Publons & Clarivate Analytics. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf
Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-Ford C., & Peddada S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 305-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4
Román-Román, A., Valero, M. V., y Caminos, C. U. (2002). Los criterios de calidad editorial Latindex en el marco de la evaluación de las revistas españolas de humanidades y ciencias sociales. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25(3), 286-307. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2002.v25.i3.109
Ross-Hellauer, T., Deppe, A., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
Rowland, F. (2002). The peer‐review process. Learned publishing, 15(4): 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206
Ruíz-Pérez, R., Martín-Martín, A., y Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Las revistas universitarias en el marco de los criterios de evaluación de la actividad investigadora en España. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 38(2), e081. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2015.2.1191
Sense About Science (2019). Quality, trust and peer review: researchers’ perspectives 10 years on. Sense About Science. https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Quality-trust-peer-review.pdf
Shattell, M. M., Chinn, P., Thomas, S.P. & Cowling W. R. (2010). Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(1), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x
Shatz, D. (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Souder, L. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110109
Taylor & Francis. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. Taylor & Francis Group. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/peer-review-global-view/
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques D., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D. et al. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6(6), 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community–Results from an international study. Information Services & Use, 28(2), 109-112. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2008-0568
Ware, M. (2016). Peer review survey 2015. Publishing Research Consortium. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting Ltd. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/655756/PRC-peer-review-survey-report-Final-2016-05-19.pdf.
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ramón A. Feenstra, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
• The transfer of the copyright of the article to Revista Española de Sociología.
• The assignment to the Revista Española de Sociología of the rights of commercial exploitation of the article to third parties both in the offset and digital formats, as well as to the search engines and platforms that may serve as intermediaries for the sale or knowledge of the article.
