[Edling] [BULK] Edling Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3

Sat Jan 30 06:49:01 UTC 2021

I had not heard of this. Thank you for sharing, Francis, and for your
thoughtful reflections on the potential harm that these practices are
likely to cause.
Best regards,
Rob

*Dr. Robert A. Troyer*
Professor of Linguistics
Department of English Studies <http://www.wou.edu/english/>
Office: BELL 121, Phone: 503-838-9123
he/him/his
Western Oregon University

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:02 AM <edling-request at lists.mail.umbc.edu> wrote:

> Send Edling mailing list submissions to
>         edling at lists.mail.umbc.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.mail.umbc.edu/mailman/listinfo/edling
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         edling-request at lists.mail.umbc.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         edling-owner at lists.mail.umbc.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Edling digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Transparent Peer Review - Your Thoughts? (Francis M. Hult)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:59:29 -0500
> From: "Francis M. Hult" <fmhult at umbc.edu>
> To: edling at lists.mail.umbc.edu
> Subject: [Edling] Transparent Peer Review - Your Thoughts?
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAEs-vYGFiTacNWC7QXSzirWLwaPC+7UVCJO59S+5p6dzeXNw_w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> There is an emerging practice in academic publishing known as "transparent
> peer review."  I encountered it recently for the first time in our field
> when reviewing for a journal by a major publisher (I won't name the journal
> since the editors have not yet responded to my queries about the
> practice).  In talking to colleagues about it, many had not heard about
> transparent peer review so I wanted to raise awareness about it and share
> some thoughts I have after reflecting on it.
>
> If you are not familiar with transparent peer review, you can see an
> overview at these sites:
> https://publons.com/benefits/publishers/transparent-review
>
>
> https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/transparent-peer-review.html
>
> In brief, transparent peer review makes the full reports from peer
> reviewers public in a published format that is permanently connected to the
> published article so that readers can see both the article itself and all
> the peer review and editorial comments on it.
>
> What strikes me about it are the wider sociocultural, sociopolitical, and
> psychological implications and consequences.  At a time when we are only
> getting started addressing the challenges of global inequities in academic
> publishing, it is a worrying development.  A number of journals in
> applied/educational linguistics have taken leading roles in improving
> equitable access to English-medium publishing.  I worry that if so-called
> transparent peer review were to gain footing in our field, it would lead us
> in the wrong direction.  It seems to me that the risks far outweigh any
> possible benefits.
>
> The risks I see are the following, though there would likely be other
> unintended consequences as well:
>
> (1) Many peer reviewers will self-censor their review texts because the
> readership of the review is public.  A review becomes, in effect, an online
> publication.  Accordingly, many reviewers will write for a public audience
> and not for the confidential audience of the editors and authors.  Authors,
> in turn, will be deprived of candid commentary that will help improve their
> work.
>
> (2) Related to the point above, self-censorship among peer reviewers would
> do disproportionate harm to scholars in countries/contexts who have access
> to fewer academic resources, including reference materials as well as
> training in English academic writing.  An important role that peer
> reviewers play in fostering global equity and publication access is
> providing scholars from such contexts with thorough and constructive
> reviews.  Not meant for public consumption, such detailed reviews often
> provide extensive constructive feedback about literature review scope,
> research design, and data analysis because these authors need a deeper
> level of guidance than they might have received in other ways.  Such
> reviews are more so a work product of the writing process than mere
> evaluation of submission quality.  They often lead to extensive further
> development and revision where the final product ends up looking
> substantially different from an earlier submission.  When reviewers are not
> comfortable writing such deep and constructive reviews because they would
> be made public, scholars who need this support will not get it.  This, in
> turn, will result in favoring publications by scholars in academically
> privileged contexts.
>
> (3) Some peer reviewers may write unvarnished peer reviews, whether
> anonymous or not, that can be damaging both psychologically and
> professionally to authors.  This is a particular concern with respect to
> junior scholars for whom the power relations with respect to (often more
> senior) peer reviewers is especially inequitable.  As experienced
> researchers, we know that there is great variation in the tone of peer
> review texts, and it is not uncommon to see blunt or strident statements or
> even mischaracterizations of methods and epistemologies.  Having such a
> peer review forever associated with one's published article can do major
> damage to a researcher's professional reputations and sense of self as a
> scholar.  It can be harmful for mid-career scholars too, but those who have
> already established their reputations and gained respect in the field would
> be able to weather a harmfully framed review while a junior scholar just
> starting their career might not.  It would be similarly more harmful to
> scholars from less academically privileged backgrounds for either
> unvarnished critiques or work-product-style reviews as noted in the point
> above to be made public.
>
> (4) A further implication of concern about publishing peer review reports
> is the chilling effect it will have on researchers' willingness to submit
> papers.  There is already in many contexts around the world high stakes
> associated with publishing in respected international journals.  Having
> coached scholars at various points in their careers in a variety of
> countries, I have seen firsthand the psychological challenges that follow
> from navigating the peer review process.  Even receiving a confidential
> review can be threatening to junior scholars' sense of academic confidence,
> and it stifles their willingness to submit manuscripts to journals.  The
> psychological barrier that would follow from a peer review report being
> forever attached in public to a publication online would be paralyzing for
> many.  This would be especially true of scholars in many global contexts
> who already harbor insecurities about English-medium publication and
> submitting to international journals but are nonetheless under pressure
> from their institutions to do so.
>
> In sum, so-called "transparent" peer review poses many risks and ethical
> dilemmas with which I am greatly troubled.  I wonder if others have also
> encountered it in our field and what your experiences and thoughts are
> about it.
>
> Best,
> Francis
>
> --
> *Francis M. Hult, PhD, FRGS* | Professor
> Department of Education
> University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
>
> Editor, Educational Linguistics Book Series
> <https://www.springer.com/series/5894>
> Co-Editor, Contributions to the Sociology of Language Book Series
> <https://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/16644>
>
> Web Profile <https://education.umbc.edu/faculty-list/francis-m-hult/> |
> Academia.edu <http://umbc.academia.edu/FrancisMHult> | TESOL at UMBC
> <http://esol.umbc.edu/>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.mail.umbc.edu/mailman/private/edling/attachments/20210129/7e3ef490/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Edling mailing list
> Edling at lists.mail.umbc.edu
> (_internal_name)s
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Edling Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/edling/attachments/20210129/6cfa6ac6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------

_______________________________________________
Edling mailing list
Edling at lists.mail.umbc.edu
https://lists.mail.umbc.edu/mailman/listinfo/edling