Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
An Editor's Guide to Writing and Publishing Science$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Michael Hochberg

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780198804789

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: August 2019

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198804789.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 15 December 2019

Peer Review

Peer Review

Chapter:
(p.153) 21 Peer Review
Source:
An Editor's Guide to Writing and Publishing Science
Author(s):

Michael Hochberg

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198804789.003.0021

The main objectives of peer review are to improve manuscript quality and advise the editor regarding acceptance. But peer review’s two defining characteristics—anonymity and altruism—are ill-suited to reliably fulfill its aims. Increases in manuscript submissions has led to a “tragedy of the reviewer commons,” whereby over-solicited reviewers put less effort into reviews or stop reviewing altogether. This chapter presents problems surrounding peer review, and approaches to slowing the tragedy.

Keywords:   Reviewers, anonymity, altruism, cascade reviews

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .