Kirsten Bell (Author)
Patricia Kingori (Author)
Mills, David (Author)
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
Article
Kirsten Bell;
Patricia Kingori;
David Mills;
(2024)
Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews
(/isis/citation/CBB015775164/)
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/)
Article
Chaoxiong Zhang;
Priscilla Song;
(March 2020)
Translating Guān’ài in the People’s War on Drugs: Enacting Relations of Care in China’s State-Run Methadone Maintenance Treatment Program
(/isis/citation/CBB667125425/)
Article
Lambros Roumbanis;
(2019)
Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants
(/isis/citation/CBB181098680/)
Be the first to comment!