Abstract

 
 

References (25)



 
 

Citations (1)



 


 



Improving the Peer Review Process: An Examination of Commonalities between Scholarly Societies and Knowledge Networks


Susu Nousala


Aalto University; University of Melbourne

June 29, 2010

Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, Orlando, Florida, June 29-July 2, 2010

Abstract:     
Whilst peer review is the common form of scholarly refereeing, there are many differing aspects to this process. There is a view that the system is not without it’s faults and this has given rise to increasing discussion and examination of the process as a whole. Since the importance of peer review is based on the primary way in which quality control is asserted within the academic world, the concern is what impact this is having on an ever increasing diversity of scholarship, in particular, within and between science and engineering disciplines. The peer review process as is commonly understood is increasingly considered as a conservative approach which is failing to adequately deal with the challenges of assessing interdisciplinary research, publications and outputs.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 6

Keywords: community of interest, community of practice, scholarly societies, interdisciplinary research, knowledge networks

JEL Classification: D23, D40, D73, D83, H41, I29, O32, 034

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 16, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Nousala, Susu, Improving the Peer Review Process: An Examination of Commonalities between Scholarly Societies and Knowledge Networks (June 29, 2010). Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, Orlando, Florida, June 29-July 2, 2010 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1762876

Contact Information

Susu Nousala (Contact Author)
Aalto University ( email )
P.O. Box 11000
Aalto, FI-00076
Finland
University of Melbourne ( email )
Parkville
Melbourne, 3000
Australia
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 281
Downloads: 39
References:  25
Citations:  1
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.297 seconds