Glenn, Aileen Fyfe's point is not to mistake "peer review" with either an object appearing on the 8th day of creation, or captured by a dictionary definition. Like many terms, it also obeys a historical trajectory which, indeed, begins around 1965 if we forget Maxwell's early attempts to market his new journals by touting a "fairer" way of accepting or rejecting submissions. Before 1955-65, it appears that other terms were used such as "referees" and "refereeing". The change in vocabulary is, therefore, interesting and it allows to project some possible interpretations on the term "peer review". That is what A. Fyfe's excellent _historical_ article is about. Your own approach to "peer review" history as outlined below is undoubtedly OK, but it is the US facet of that history. Meanwhile, the rest of the world, in varied ways, also grappled with these issues. Arie Rip has written several articles around this topic in the 1980s and has also underscored the tension between researcher autonomy and governmental attempts at managing a research policy. Melinda Baldwin who has also written about /Nature/ is indeed a strong reference on this topic and journal histories. Jean-Claude Guédon Le 2024-10-03 à 11:30, Glenn Hampson a écrit : > > I think part of our entanglement on this issue is that there are so > many different historical definitions of (and expectations from) what > we now call “peer review”---not just Aileen Fyfe’s great history, > which ends in 1965, but the story of what happened to peer review > /after/ 1965. Spoiler alert: The modern version of peer review is not > the same as the historical version. The modern version arose from > government oversight mechanisms---specifically the US Congress in the > 1970s as skeptical politicians tried to clamp down on wasteful > research spending. Selling this version of peer review to the world > took a couple of decades---it wasn’t a comfortable fit. And now we > look at this behemoth and are afraid to tinker with it because most > researchers think it provides value, but what we have wrought wasn’t > always so. Melinda Baldwin’s 2018 paper on this “current” history is > fantastic (Baldwin, Melinda. 2018. Scientific Autonomy, Public > Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United > States. Isis, volume 109, number 3)---you should be able to find a > free version somewhere. This slide show from a few years ago also puts > this issue into broader relief, FWIW: > BRISPE-presentation-final-Hampson.pdf (sci.institute) > <https://sci.institute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BRISPE-presentation-final-Hampson.pdf>. > > Best, > > Glenn > > *Glenn Hampson > Executive Director > **Science Communication Institute (SCI)* > <http://sci.institute/>** > > *From:*OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of > *Jean-Claude Guédon > *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2024 7:40 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* [OPENCAFE-L] How to support the anti-trust suit > > In a private mail, JJE Esposito asked me if I thought peer review to > be important. Did I think it was an artifact of the commercial nature > of the publishing industry imposed from without on the research community. > > His question is interesting but misdirected. > > The essence of knowledge production is discussion, debate, the "Great > Conversation" as I like to call it. In other words, peers intervention > in the knowledge process is essential. > > What is not essential, what is contingent is _the way in which "peer > review" is managed_. > > For one thing, the present system of peer review is relatively recent, > certainly after WWII. For a discussion of this point see Noah Moxham > and Aileen Fyfe, "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, > 1665-1965", /The Historical Journal/ doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334. > > I will simply quote the last sentence of this interesting study: "If > our aim, therefore, has been to show the complexity, contingency, and > historical specificity of peer review’s origins, our ambition is to > start a scholarly conversation about which of its attributes still > seem desirable, > whether it remains good for all disciplines, whose interests it > serves, and what the realistic limits of its pretensions might be." > > Producing knowledge requires the need for criticism and refutation. > Remember that knowledge is never certain, only highly probable, and > the only certain thing about it is that it will be corrected or even > totally subverted later on if the critical process goes on unimpeded. > So the need for refereeing, or peer review, or whatever you want to > call it, is fundamental to knowledge production. > > What I object to is that this process is in the hands of editors, who > may or may not be researchers, and that their agenda foregrounds the > well-being of their journal ahead of the well-being of the knowledge > producing process. Desk editors may reject submissions for reasons > that have more to do with the management of the journal's impact > factor than the management of a healthy knowledge production process. > It can also be negatively impacted by institutional politics, or > national concerns. Literature exists on all of this. > > What has been imposed from without on the research community is a > particular mode of management of the "Great Conversation". When, in > the 1950's, Maxwell, guided by Rosbaud, began to put out new kinds of > journals that societies were loath to publish - new fields, > inter-disciplinary fields, etc. - he had to work on building the > reputation of these journals. He did it in at least two ways: he > recruited visible, respected scientists that were willing to break > ranks with societies (or he created, as in the case of metallurgy, an > international consortium of societies) and he touted a form of > refereeing that would be fair by explaining that articles would be > judged by at least two independent reviewers. That recipe became the > template for this revised form of refereeing called "peer review". > > Some researchers, sometimes, do not like peer review or refereeing. In > the US, in the 1930s, Einstein withdrew a paper because, he argues, he > had not sent his paper to be reviewed, but to be published. The > example is funny, of course, but it reminds us that in the process of > knowledge production, researchers should fully control the process of > refereeing, not publishers, or publisher-selected editors. When you > treat a scholarly journal as if it were a merchandise, a lot of things > gets messed up. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives > <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L> > > > To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: > [log in to unmask] > ######################################################################## Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives: https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask] ########################################################################