Peer Review and Blogs

All academic subjects have journals that allow us to keep knowledge up-to-date. The best journals are subject to peer review, which in many cases is double-blind.

Reviewers are chosen. So an editor will send a manuscript to two or more "reviewers" for their comments. The identity of the author will be withheld from the reviewers, so the review is "blind". Reviewers are required to answer various questions which 'grade' the article, and to provide open-ended comments. The editor will return these comments to the original author/s, and may request that the article is modified. The reviewers' identities remain confidential throughout.

Authors of articles also have their own motivations. Again they are normally unpaid. Modern academia functions on the principle that Institutions are "better" if their professors, lecturers or teachers are "research-active". Government subsidy is often given to Institutions which have an ongoing record of research, which is shown by published articles. Anyone can publish articles, so preference goes to papers which have attracted a peer-review seal of approval, and presumably to avoid the possibility of friendship networks "dishonestly" securing funds, a "double-blind" mechanism has emerged.

One disadvantage is the speed. The entire process takes at least six weeks. Add to this the possibility of re-submission, delays from reviewers, no space for publication and the time received in relation to the publishing cycles, then some articles may not appear for a year after submission. Another disadvantage relates to the quality of the referees. They can make factual errors themselves or may let their opinions bias their view of the research. They may confuse their job with a tutorial role. The system is an accepted way for quality to be controlled.

In the modern day Internet publishing brings such information to us fast and free. White Papers, Newsletters and Blogs deliver the same knowledge but without the barriers of obtaining journal articles. But they are not peer-reviewed, so HOW DO WE EVALUATE THEM? How do we decide what is a high quality blog? We will explore these issues in this blog, but for now take a look at this link which is one way Blogs are evaluated.

http://uk.cision.com/Resources-page/Top-UK-Blogs/Top-UK-Blogs-Methodology/

and if you are really interested see the references below

Emerald Guide to Peer Review

http://info.emeraldinsight.com/authors/guides/review.htm

Poole, M.E. (1993) Reviewing for research excellence: expectations, procedures and outcomes, Australian Journal of Education, Vol 37, no 3, pp219-230.

Rotfeld, H. (1997). We Unequivocally Do Not Thank the @#$*& Anonymous Reviewers, Marketing Educator, 16 (Fall 1997):6 accessed on 2 January 2009 at http://www.auburn.edu/~rotfehj/REVIEWERS.html

Smith, J. (1991) Peer Review:A Vital Ingredient, Serials Vol 4, No 2, July 1991.

By Nigel Bradley, Market Researcher and Academic