The Methodological Problem in the Evaluation of Scientific Publication: What it Means to «Evaluate» a Scientific Essay

Author/s Ivo Colozzi
Publishing Year 2013 Issue 2013/100 Language Italian
Pages 11 P. 111-121 File size 627 KB
DOI 10.3280/SR2013-100011
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The paper proposes first a «guide» to the practice of refereeing, presenting some prominent examples of «how» are evaluated the products submitted for publication in journals. The examples allow understanding what are the procedures used and the profiles on which assessment is required (originality, structure, data correctness, accuracy of references, etc.). Are then presented some of the most significant problems that the vast literature on peer review has highlighted, in particular: how effective it is, that is able to detect misconduct (falsification of data, plagiarism, etc.), how much is fair, that is able to avoid the creation of systematic discrimination against certain groups of researchers or nonconventional shapes and innovative research, how efficient, ie not responsible for slowing the spread of new research and overloading the best researchers.

  1. J. Scott Armstrong (1997), «Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation», Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, pp. 63-84.
  2. L. Bornmann (2008), «An Analysis of the Peer Review Process from the Perspective of Sociology of Science Theories», Human Architecture: Journal of The Sociology of Self-Knowledge, VI, 2, pp. 23-38.
  3. British Academy (2007), Peer Review: The Challenges for the Humanities and the Social Sciences,
  4. J.M. Campanario (1998a), «Peer Review for Journals as it stand today-Part I», Science Communication, 19, 3, pp. 181-211.
  5. J.M. Campanario (1998b), «Peer Review for Journals as it stand today-Part II», Science Communication, 19, 4, pp. 277-306.
  6. R. Caso (a c. di) (2009), «Pubblicazioni scientifiche, diritti d’autore e open access: atti del convegno tenuto presso la Facoltà di Giurisprudenza di Trento il 20 giugno 2008», Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze giuridiche, 79, Trento, Università degli Studi di Trento.
  7. D.V. Cicchetti (1991), «The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-disciplinary Investigation», Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, pp. 119-86.
  8. J. Guetzkow, M. Lamont, G. Mallard (2004), «What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences?», American Sociological Review, 69, 2, pp. 190-212.
  9. I. Hames (2007), Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice,
  10. C.C. Miller (2006), «Peer Review in the Organizational and Management Sciences: Prevalence and Effects of Reviewer Hostility, Bias and Dissensus», Academy of Management Journal, 49, 3, pp. 425-31.
  11. L. Paccagnella (2010), Open access. Conoscenza aperta e società dell’informazione, Bologna, il Mulino.
  12. Publishing Research Consortium (2008), Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives (Summary Paper 4),
  13. Rin (2008), Activities, Costs and Funding Flows in the Scholarly Communications System in the UK,
  14. Rin (2010), Peer Review. A Guide for Researchers,
  15. A. Scott (2007), «Peer Review and Tje Relevance of Science», Futures, 39, pp. 827-845.
  16. Times Higher Education (2009), Retractions up ten-fold, 20 August, www.times higher

Ivo Colozzi, Il problema metodologico del referaggio: cosa vuol dire «valutare» un saggio in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 100/2013, pp 111-121, DOI: 10.3280/SR2013-100011