Article ID: CBB015775164

Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews (2024)

unapi

Over the past decade, the phenomenon of “fake” peer reviews has caused growing consternation among scholarly publishers. Yet despite the significant behind-the-scenes impact that anxieties about fakery have had on peer review processes within scholarly journals, the phenomenon itself has been subject to little scholarly analysis. Rather than treating fake reviews as a straightforward descriptive category, in this article, we explore how the discourse on fake reviews emerged and why, and what it tells us about its seeming antithesis, “genuine” peer review. Our primary source of data are two influential adjudicators of scholarly publishing integrity that have been critical to the emergence of the concept of the fake review: Retraction Watch and the Committee on Publication Ethics. Via an analysis of their respective blog posts, Forum cases, presentations, and best practice guidance, we build a genealogy of the fake review discourse and highlight the variety of players involved in staking out the fake. We conclude that constant work is required to maintain clear lines of separation between genuine and fake reviews and highlight how the concept has served to reassert the boundaries between science and society in a context where they have increasingly been questioned.

...More
Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB015775164/

Similar Citations

Article Kirsten Bell; Patricia Kingori; David Mills; (January 2024)
Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews (/isis/citation/CBB476702594/)

Article Line Edslev Andersen; K Brad Wray; (December 2019)
Detecting errors that result in retractions (/isis/citation/CBB480893444/)

Article Junhui Han; Zhengfeng Li; (June 2018)
How Metrics-Based Academic Evaluation Could Systematically Induce Academic Misconduct: A Case Study (/isis/citation/CBB909005401/)

Article Felicitas Hesselmann; Martin Reinhart; (October 2019)
Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct (/isis/citation/CBB623965126/)

Article Mikko Lagerspetz; (March 2021)
“The Grievance Studies Affair” Project: Reconstructing and Assessing the Experimental Design (/isis/citation/CBB538391440/)

Article Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner; Kean Birch; Maria Amuchastegui; (2022)
Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals (/isis/citation/CBB351753437/)

Article Edward J. Hackett; (July 2021)
The Ambivalence of Peer Review: Thank You ST&HV Reviewers 2019-2020 (/isis/citation/CBB912930423/)

Article Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner; Sarah de Rijcke; (December 2019)
Filling in the gaps: The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review (/isis/citation/CBB339339084/)

Article Sergio Sismondo; (December 2019)
Academic Lives and Cultures (/isis/citation/CBB500921335/)

Article Emmanuel Didier; Catherine Guaspare-Cartron; (February 2018)
Research Note: The new watchdogs’ vision of science: A roundtable with Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) and Brandon Stell (PubPeer) (/isis/citation/CBB935591060/)

Article Damien P. Williams; (2024)
Scholars are Failing the GPT Review Process (/isis/citation/CBB491291156/)

Article Buhm Soon Park; (2020)
Making matters of fraud: Sociomaterial technology in the case of Hwang and Schatten (/isis/citation/CBB209912238/)

Article Marie-Andrée Jacob; (February 2019)
Under repair: A publication ethics and research record in the making (/isis/citation/CBB050139593/)

Article Mario Biagioli; (June 2022)
Ghosts, brands, and influencers: Emergent trends in scientific authorship (/isis/citation/CBB701812762/)

Article Felicitas Hesselmann; Martin Reinhart; (June 2021)
Cycles of invisibility: The limits of transparency in dealing with scientific misconduct (/isis/citation/CBB357048923/)

Article Elina I. Mäkinen; (2019)
The Power of Peer Review on Transdisciplinary Discovery (/isis/citation/CBB034066102/)

Article Lambros Roumbanis; (2022)
Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review (/isis/citation/CBB437513195/)

Article Kyle Siler; David Strang; (January 2017)
Peer Review and Scholarly Originality: Let 1,000 Flowers Bloom, but Don’t Step on Any (/isis/citation/CBB358441182/)

Authors & Contributors
Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang
Martin Reinhart
Felicitas Hesselmann
Roumbanis, Lambros
Biagioli, Mario
Birch, Kean
Journals
Science, Technology, and Human Values
Social Studies of Science
East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
History of Science
Science Communication
Concepts
Science and technology studies (STS)
Peer review
Scientific misconduct; fraud in science
Scholarly publishing
Research
Communication within scientific contexts
People
Hwang Woo-suk
Discussion, roundtable
Ivan Oransky
Time Periods
21st century
Places
China
United States
Korea
Sweden
Institutions
Committee on Publication Ethics
Biomed Central
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment