当前位置: X-MOL 学术Hum. Relat. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
EXPRESS: Critical Essay: Blinding Faith - Paradoxes and Pathologies of Opacity in Peer Review
Human Relations ( IF 5.658 ) Pub Date : 2021-04-23 , DOI: 10.1177/00187267211016752
Hugh Willmott 1
Affiliation  

The standing and progress of science depends upon confidence in the evaluation of knowledge claims. This essay affirms the value of peer review as a ‘gold standard’ but argues that its efficacy for scientific progress is, on balance, diminished by blinding. It reflects critically upon the anomaly between an ethos of openness that is widely held to define scientific work, and the opacity institutionalized in reviewing and editorial processes, with specific reference to the field of management and organization studies. The anomaly is attributed to the operation of asymmetrical relations of power in the establishment and reproduction of evaluation processes. The proposed means of mitigating the anomaly, and thereby improving manuscript evaluation, is movement in the direction of more open peer review.



中文翻译:

表达:批判性论文:盲目信仰-同行评审中不透明的悖论和病态

科学的地位和进步取决于对知识主张评估的信心。本文肯定了同行评审作为“黄金标准”的价值,但认为盲目地削弱了同行评审对科学进步的功效。它批判性地反映了广泛用于定义科学工作的开放性精神与在审查和编辑过程中制度化的不透明性之间的反常现象,具体涉及管理和组织研究领域。异常归因于评估过程的建立和再现中权力的不对称关系的运行。所提出的减轻异常从而改善手稿评估的方法是朝着更加开放的同行评审的方向发展。

更新日期:2021-04-24
down
wechat
bug