The invisible hand of peer review
The invisible hand of peer review
The refereed journal literature needs to be freed from both paper and its costs, but not from peer review, whose "invisible hand" is what maintains its quality. The residual cost of online-only peer review is low enough to be recovered from author-institution-end page charges, covered from institutional subscription savings, thereby vouchsafing a toll-free refereed research literature for everyone, everywhere, forever.
Human nature being what it is, it cannot be altogether relied upon to police itself. Individual exceptions there may be, but to treat them as the rule would be to underestimate the degree to which our potential unruliness is vetted by collective constraints, implemented formally.
So it is in civic matters, and it is no different in the world of Learned Inquiry. The "quis custodiet" problem among scholars has traditionally been solved by means of a quality-control and certification [QC/C] system called "peer review" (Harnad 1985): The work of specialists is submitted to a qualified adjudicator, an editor, who in turn sends it to fellow-specialists, referees, to seek their advice about whether the paper is potentially publishable, and if so, what further work is required to make it acceptable. The paper is not published until and unless the requisite revision can be and is done to the satisfaction of the editor and referees.
Harnad, Stevan
442ee520-71a1-4283-8e01-106693487d8b
April 2000
Harnad, Stevan
442ee520-71a1-4283-8e01-106693487d8b
Harnad, Stevan
(2000)
The invisible hand of peer review.
Exploit Interactive, (5).
Abstract
The refereed journal literature needs to be freed from both paper and its costs, but not from peer review, whose "invisible hand" is what maintains its quality. The residual cost of online-only peer review is low enough to be recovered from author-institution-end page charges, covered from institutional subscription savings, thereby vouchsafing a toll-free refereed research literature for everyone, everywhere, forever.
Human nature being what it is, it cannot be altogether relied upon to police itself. Individual exceptions there may be, but to treat them as the rule would be to underestimate the degree to which our potential unruliness is vetted by collective constraints, implemented formally.
So it is in civic matters, and it is no different in the world of Learned Inquiry. The "quis custodiet" problem among scholars has traditionally been solved by means of a quality-control and certification [QC/C] system called "peer review" (Harnad 1985): The work of specialists is submitted to a qualified adjudicator, an editor, who in turn sends it to fellow-specialists, referees, to seek their advice about whether the paper is potentially publishable, and if so, what further work is required to make it acceptable. The paper is not published until and unless the requisite revision can be and is done to the satisfaction of the editor and referees.
Text
nature2.html
- Other
More information
Published date: April 2000
Additional Information:
Earlier Shorter version: Harnad, S. (1998) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature [online] (c. 5 Nov. 1998) http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html Longer version: Harnad, S. (2000) The Invisible Hand of Peer Review, Exploit Interactive, issue 5, April 2000 <http://www.exploit-lib.org/>: http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature2.html http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/nature2.html
Organisations:
Web & Internet Science
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 252862
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/252862
PURE UUID: 2d7ebc1e-5254-4fd5-94fe-d9d4ff76d0b4
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 19 Jun 2001
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 02:48
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Stevan Harnad
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics