To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.
For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.
London School of Economics
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:33 pm
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsc ... prevented/
In a contribution to the LSE Blog on The Impact of the Social Sciences, Sneha Kulkarni highlights issues that should concern us all. Inter alia, she flags problems inherent in the common practice of allowing authors to suggest reviewers.
Broadening the discussion to include the issue of peer review would surely change some of the dynamics of the DART process in Political Science.
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:48 am
This raises the question of whether the peer review process should become part of DA-RT initiative. The peer review process arguably is the least transparent element of the larger research process. There are some reasons for this but as the Boone's link makes clear there is a lot of experimenting going in other fields.
The link also points to the increase number of retractions in various disciplines. It would be wrong to blame this exclusively on flaws in the journal review process. This also suggests that there is considerable room for improving the individual scholars' research transparency. It challenges the claim of various other posts who ask whether there even is a problem that DA-RT is trying to solve.