p.s. on peer review

In the last post I forgot to mention that I especially agree with Martin Coward’s post insofar as it defends peer review. Perhaps I’m missing something important, but of all the targets of contemporary critiques of academia-as-it-is, peer review so far strikes me as the least deserving target.

I know that some people are quite passionate about this, claiming that peer review cements conformity and the dominance of cliques. It’s quite a plausible-sounding critique. The only problem is, I haven’t noticed it to be the case. Most peer reviewers provide helpful or at least sincere feedback. I’ve had a handful of jerk anonymous referees taking spiteful potshots over the years– and so will you, if you haven’t already. But it’s a small minority of referees who behave like that. Most of them really are offering their considered professional judgments in a helpful spirit.

It’s also becoming harder and harder for journals and publishers even to find willing referees, so you might also be glad that they’re even doing it in the first place.