Come si valuta la qualità nella Repubblica della Scienza? Una riflessione sul concetto di peer review
| Main Author: | Di Donato, Francesca |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal PeerReviewed application/pdf |
| Bahasa: | it |
| Terbitan: |
, 2007
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
http://eprints.rclis.org/12602/1/peerreviewfdd_it.pdf http://eprints.rclis.org/12602/ |
Daftar Isi:
- Peer reviewing is often called for as an essential divide between scientific knowledge and bare opinion. In general terms, it is an evaluation tool consisting in the formula through which an academic submits a text to the opinion of other academics (the so-called “peers”) who state its legitimacy; as a technical term, it amounts to the specific evaluation process that comes before publication on a scientific journal, a presentation’s approval to a conference or funding and grant allocation by funding agencies. In the abstract, peer review is required for appraising the quality of knowledge while it helps assuring its truthfulness and reputation; significantly, in the current transition between print and digital era, peer review itself is evoked as an element of continuity with the past and as a guarantee of scientific quality: while technology continuously upgrades, it is claimed, the knowledge validation process remains the same. Actually, it is one of the engines propelling research funding: as a filter by which it is decided whether to publish a scientific result, it influences both recruitment and career in the Republic of Science phaenomenon (that is, both in the academia and within research institutions), and public and private research funding. In practice, it often leaves room for abuses and frauds, allowing the darkest exertion of academic power. It may be for these reasons that peer review is acknowledged as the distinguishing feature of the modern academic system and, although legally unbinding, not only it is embraced (as a tool of the trade) by generations of scholars, but also it is very often deemed as the establishing and distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge. In the following pages I will examine the current praxis of peer review, to meditate then on the evolution and the future of this tool and, eventually, I will cast a glance at the historical and technological framework in which it first came to light.