CAT — Education & Knowledge RC
4 questions, free to view. Click any question to see the answer and explanation.
The job of a peer reviewer is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other's manuscripts on the behalf of scholarly journals — and they usually receive no monetary compensation and little if any recognition for their effort. Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments in their field; some simply see it as a duty to the discipline. Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them.
In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work. Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share entire referee reports or simply list the journals for whom they've carried out a review…. The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value on the work of peer review and asking others, such as grant funders, to do the same. While that's vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia, there's also immense value in the data underlying peer review. Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in academic publishing.…..Peer review data could also help root out bias. Last year, a study based on peer review data for nearly 24,000 submissions to the biomedical journal eLife found that women and non-Westerners were vastly underrepresented among peer reviewers. Only around one in every five reviewers was female, and less than two percent of reviewers were based in developing countries…. Openly publishing peer review data could perhaps also help journals address another problem in academic publishing: fraudulent peer reviews. For instance, a minority of authors have been known to use phony email addresses to pose as an outside expert and review their own manuscripts.…
Opponents of open peer review commonly argue that confidentiality is vital to the integrity of the review process; referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them. Some also hold concerns that open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to judge manuscripts in the first place, or that they'll take longer to do so out of fear of scrutiny….
Even when the content of reviews and the identity of reviewers can't be shared publicly, perhaps journals could share the data with outside researchers for study. Or they could release other figures that wouldn't compromise the anonymity of reviews but that might answer important questions about how long the reviewing process takes, how many researchers editors have to reach out to on average to find one who will carry out the work, and the geographic distribution of peer reviewers.
Of course, opening up data underlying the reviewing process will not fix peer review entirely, and there may be instances in which there are valid reasons to keep the content of peer reviews hidden and the identity of the referees confidential. But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.
According to the passage, which of the following is the only reason NOT given in favour of making peer review data public?
It will deal with peer review fraud such as authors publishing bogus reviews of their work.
It would highlight the gender and race biases currently existing in the selection of reviewers.
It could address various inefficiencies and fraudulent practices that continue in academic publishing process.
It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
It can tackle the problem of selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
The passage gives three reasons for making peer review data public, tackling fraud such as phony reviews, addressing gender and geographic bias among reviewers, and improving efficiency in the publishing process. The passage never mentions selecting appropriately qualified reviewers as a benefit of open peer review data.
All of the following are listed as reasons why academics choose to review other scholars' work EXCEPT:
It helps them keep current with cutting-edge ideas in their academic disciplines.
Some use this as an opportunity to publicise their own review work.
It is seen as a form of service to the academic community.
It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community.
It is seen as an opportunity to expand their influence in the academic community.
The passage gives two reasons academics choose to review others' work, keeping abreast with developments in their field, and seeing it as a duty to the discipline. It also mentions that some post reviews online to claim credit for their work, which corresponds to option
B. The passage never mentions expanding influence in the academic community as a motivation for reviewing.
Based on the passage we can infer that the author would most probably support
more careful screening to ensure the recruitment of content-familiar peer reviewers.
preserving the anonymity of reviewers to protect them from criticism.
publicising peer review data rather than the publication of actual reviews.
greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
greater transparency across the peer review process in academic publishing.
The passage argues that the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary, advocating for greater transparency across the peer review process while acknowledging limited cases where confidentiality is warranted.
According to the passage, some are opposed to making peer reviews public for all the following reasons EXCEPT that it
makes reviewers reluctant to review manuscripts, especially if these are critical of the submitted work.
leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others.
deters reviewers from producing honest, if critical, reviews that are vital to the sound publishing process.
delays the manuscript evaluation process as reviewers would take longer to write their reviews.
leaves the reviewers unexposed to unwarranted and unjustified criticism or comments from others.
The passage lists three arguments opponents make against open peer review, that reviewers may be less critical if their reports are published, that open reviewing may deter reviewers from agreeing to participate, and that reviewers may take longer out of fear of scrutiny. The passage never says opponents argue that open review exposes reviewers to unjustified criticism, quite the opposite, the concern raised is about reviewers being more guarded because their own reviews become public.
Want this as a timed attempt?
Log in free to attempt this topic with a real timer, analytics, streaks and bookmarks.