https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332626809_Bye_Bye_Peer-Reviewed_Publishing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328726216_Research_Counts_Not_the_Journal

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332626809_Bye_Bye_Peer-Reviewed_Publishing

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328726216_Research_Counts_Not_the_Journal

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Thank you Jim.

Excellent reply Mr. Thatcher.

The blind peer-review system, in which experts in the field decide on the quality of an article or book, may not be perfect but it is the only way to maintain quality in academic publishing.

And yes, if an article or book fails to cite one or more important authorities on the subject being discussed, it is a problem because one should demonstrate that one has done one’s research and understand the subject thoroughly. One does not have to agree with the views expressed by the recognized authorities on the subject. However, one should have at least read their work. If the citing is not there, the reviewers have no way of knowing whether or not one has done so.

Failure to read and/or cite recognized authorities on a subject is something that can be forgiven in an undergraduate paper (though it should be a reason for marking the paper down). But it cannot be forgiven in a paper written by an academic researcher or scholar.

https://polarjournal.org/2018/12/06/current-polar-issue-november-2018/

“…We would be the first to agree that there is truth to some of these arguments—sometimes. But having now learned the peer review process inside and out, and made numerous serious editorial decisions based on reviews, we would argue that more often than not these problematic tendencies can be and often are ameliorated through the peer review process. Moreover, the tendencies that are so problematic—the production of poor or deeply biased peer reviews—can be dealt with by editorial decisions that entail careful reading, consultation with each other, and with editorial board members if need be.

First, we would agree with other editors that citizenship through the work of (good) peer reviewing is crucial to maintaining our field (Grinker and Besnier 2016). If you publish, you should review; if you hope to publish, you should review. This is not just a quid pro quo, but it is also a learning experience, especially for newer scholars who, through engaging in peer review, can learn better what makes scholarship more or less effective. Reviewers can and do refuse to review pieces for which they have a conflict of interest or for which they do not believe they can provide a disinterested review. Most of the time, the reviews we receive are thoughtful, carefully crafted, and rendered by people who take their work seriously. Most of the time, we are impressed with and thankful for the work that so many of our reviewers put into developing the articles that pass through our pipeline. Authors regularly thank the reviewers in their final articles, and even those whose work is not published (yet) in PoLAR often thank the reviewers anyway for how their comments have helped their thinking.

Moreover, editors are not powerless. We work all the time to broaden our networks of reviewers (after all this is in our interest! If we are always going to the same small pool of reviewers, we will “strike out”). We seek reviews not only from established scholars but also from recent PhDs and from those outside the immediate field in which the author is based. As a subfield journal, we actively solicit reviews not just from area or topical experts but also from people with convergent or related knowledge who can speak to the wider‐ranging relevance and interest of an article. When we run into challenges or problems, as does happen, we are not out of options. Editors choose, all the time, to balance an overly biased review with direct recommendations for authors and to grant more or less weight to a review. These are, of course, subjective decisions—as all decision‐making is. But as much socio‐legal scholarship has shown, it is precisely through the moments of finessing, or working through a problem, that larger issues may be addressed. Finally, PoLAR is well‐known as a journal with a particular commitment to “mentoring” early career scholars. We are thrilled when we receive articles from recent PhDs—and indeed, these are some of the strongest articles that we publish.

Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, then, we would argue instead that we can work to improve a system that is, of course, prone to certain problems but which is not broken; and moreover, that it is up to us as an academic community and culture to seek to do so. Niko Besnier and Pablo Morales have recently called for an ethic of hard work and generosity to guide the projects of writing, editing, and reviewing, as well as the need to imagine that others, also, bring such qualities to the table (Besnier and Morales 2018). Another way to phrase this might be simply to have good faith. They argue that such an ethic is a powerful stop‐gap against the encroachment of the neoliberal university—even though it does not, of course, always work. It is important to take these words with a dose of salt, and to remain critical and vigilant about the forms of power and even abuse that can be enacted through traditional venues of academic knowledge. But we would contend that such good faith is crucial, particularly when combined with a concrete attentiveness to practice.”