“What do we want? Evidence-based science! When do we want it? After peer review!” We have come to think of peer review as the stamp of quality that separates real results from mere conjecture, but a look under the hood reveals that the participants inside of peer review are far from objective. This book reclaims subjectivity and affirms a social mode of objectivity, which prevents peer review from overpromising and underdelivering in its vital role in knowledge production.
b>Daniel Ucko, Ph.D. University College London (2001) and Stony Brook University (2020), is Head of Ethics and Research Integrity at the American Physical Society.
Acknowledgments IX Abbreviations and Acronyms XI
Introduction: Peer Review, an Ancient New Tradition
1 Introducing the Project
1 How Peer Review Operates
1 Agents and Their Roles
2 Why Publish?
3 The Referee Persona
4 The Editor
5 Schematic of the Peer Review Process
6 Conclusion of Peer Review
2 History
1 The Myth of Oldenburg
2 Pre-history of Peer Review
3 Conclusion: Transition to Modern Peer Review
3 Objectivity
1 Objectivity as Realism
2 Process Objectivity
3 Persona
4 Conclusion: Whither Objectivity?
4 Anonymity
1 What Is Anonymity?
2 Rise of the Anonymous Referee
3 Why Is Anonymity Accepted?
4 Anonymous Authors
5 Conclusion: the Tension between Anonymity and Open Science
5 Trust
1 A Cognitive Account of Trust
2 The Hardwig Affair
3 Peer Review and Trust
4 The Replication Crisis
5 Power Relations and Trust
6 An Affective Account of Trust
7 Expertise and Trust
8 Trust and Distrust
9 Conclusion on Trust in Peer Review
6 Opening Up
1 Opening Peer Review
2 Opening Access
3 Conclusion on Openness
Conclusion Bibliography Index
This book is especially relevant for philosophers of science, editors, scholars of peer review, publishing historians, physicists, natural scientists, publishers, publishing professionals