As we wrote before we are celebrating Peer Review Week 2016 by focusing on the theme “recognition for review”. Our aim this Peer Review Week will be to publish interviews with scholars from different disciplines at Stockholm University.
Today we publish a short interview with Andres Rivarola, Ph.D., Associate Professor at Institute of Latin American Studies at Stockholm University.
Why is peer-review important in your field today?
– It gives a stronger legitimacy to the work of the author and to the publisher. There is a discussion about this system, with its pros and cons. Yet, in my view there are more positive elements than negatives. A well done peer-review process improves the possibility of assuring the academic quality of the study. The author receives useful feedback and the publisher assures in a better way that its publications have a good academic standard.
What do you think about the future of peer-review?
– I believe that peer-review will remain, although it has to be said that it is not something entirely new in the academic world, were peer assessments have since long been an established procedure. We need though to discuss more on what is meant with a ‘well done peer-review’. In this sense it is, in my view, becoming increasingly accepted that a blind review is to be preferable, as well as having more than one peers, in order to assure a greater diversity of views on one publication.
What would make you accept (or reject) an invitation to review an article, a book or a research proposal?
– I would accept depending on the time I have available to do this, on how close the study is to my field of expertise, and also where it will be published.
Do you have any thoughts or want to contribute with your thoughts on Peer Review? Please leave a comment.
Previous articles during Peer Review Week 2016
- A researcher driven publisher should give recognition for review – Part 1
- A researcher driven publisher should give recognition for review – Part 2
- ”The threat is that the core of the publishing process is invisible and never recognized at any level”
- “Personally I have always seen double-blind peer-reviewing as the way to go to ensure complete honesty from reviewers who may be faced with the need to write an unfavourable review”
One thought on “”We need though to discuss more on what is meant with a ‘well done peer-review´” #peerrevw16”