Zobrazit v EDS

Judging Importance before Checking Correctness: Quick Opinions in Mathematical Peer Review.

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Název: Judging Importance before Checking Correctness: Quick Opinions in Mathematical Peer Review.
Autoři: Greiffenhagen, Christian
Zdroj: Science, Technology & Human Values; Jul2024, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p935-962, 28p
Témata: MATHEMATICS, PUBLISHING
Abstrakt: Peer review has never been a uniform practice but is now more diverse than ever. Despite a vast literature, little is known of how different disciplines organize peer review. This paper draws on ninety-five qualitative interviews with editors and publishers and several hundred written reports to analyze the organization of peer review in pure mathematics. This article focuses on the practice of "quick opinions" at top journals in mathematics: asking (senior) experts about a paper's importance, and only after positive evaluation sending the paper for a full review (which most importantly means checking the paper's correctness). Quick opinions constitute a form of "importance only" peer review and are thus the opposite of the "soundness only" approach at mega-journals such as PLOS ONE. Quick opinions emerged in response to increasing submissions and the fact that checking correctness in mathematics is particularly time-consuming. Quick opinions are informal and are often only addressed to editors. They trade on, indeed reinforce, a journal hierarchy, where journal names are often used as a "members' measurement system" to characterize importance. Finally, quick opinions highlight that a key function of the peer-reviewed journal today, apart from validation and filtration, is "designation"—giving authors items on their CV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Science, Technology & Human Values is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Databáze: Complementary Index
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=EBSCO&SrcAuth=EBSCO&DestApp=WOS&ServiceName=TransferToWoS&DestLinkType=GeneralSearchSummary&Func=Links&author=Greiffenhagen%20C
    Name: ISI
    Category: fullText
    Text: Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science
    Icon: https://imagesrvr.epnet.com/ls/20docs.gif
    MouseOverText: Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science
Header DbId: edb
DbLabel: Complementary Index
An: 178804335
RelevancyScore: 993
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 993.269470214844
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Judging Importance before Checking Correctness: Quick Opinions in Mathematical Peer Review.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Greiffenhagen%2C+Christian%22">Greiffenhagen, Christian</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: Science, Technology & Human Values; Jul2024, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p935-962, 28p
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22MATHEMATICS%22">MATHEMATICS</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22PUBLISHING%22">PUBLISHING</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Peer review has never been a uniform practice but is now more diverse than ever. Despite a vast literature, little is known of how different disciplines organize peer review. This paper draws on ninety-five qualitative interviews with editors and publishers and several hundred written reports to analyze the organization of peer review in pure mathematics. This article focuses on the practice of "quick opinions" at top journals in mathematics: asking (senior) experts about a paper's importance, and only after positive evaluation sending the paper for a full review (which most importantly means checking the paper's correctness). Quick opinions constitute a form of "importance only" peer review and are thus the opposite of the "soundness only" approach at mega-journals such as PLOS ONE. Quick opinions emerged in response to increasing submissions and the fact that checking correctness in mathematics is particularly time-consuming. Quick opinions are informal and are often only addressed to editors. They trade on, indeed reinforce, a journal hierarchy, where journal names are often used as a "members' measurement system" to characterize importance. Finally, quick opinions highlight that a key function of the peer-reviewed journal today, apart from validation and filtration, is "designation"—giving authors items on their CV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: Abstract
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Science, Technology & Human Values is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://erproxy.cvtisr.sk/sfx/access?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edb&AN=178804335
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/01622439231203445
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 28
        StartPage: 935
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: MATHEMATICS
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: PUBLISHING
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Judging Importance before Checking Correctness: Quick Opinions in Mathematical Peer Review.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Greiffenhagen, Christian
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Text: Jul2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 01622439
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Science, Technology & Human Values
              Type: main
ResultId 1