Peer Review: A Filter for Quality

There is little dispute that peer review will remain as a means of quality control and certification of higher education scholarship and research. Harnad (2000, p. 1) refers to peer review as the “invisible hand ” that maintains quality. Alternatives have been discussed, but no system has gained enough support for change in the foreseeable future. Thus, it is in the best interest of the human sciences to ensure that the peer review system serves the interests of all the parties involved. Criticism of peer review indicates that neither the editor nor the referees are infallible. Poor selection of specialists for specific articles and misinterpretation of referee advice are potentially problematic. Failures of referees include careless review, unfair criticism, and inadequate feedback. In addition, attention to technical details instead of substantive issues can sometimes diminish the effectiveness of peer review. Authors share in the problem; a good many papers have had insufficient editing before submission. And authors are not always conscientious in using the feedback to make changes. Because little attention is given to the intricacies of peer review and reviewers receive little or no training in how to conduct a review, this paper will explore the editorial objectives and the elements of the review that could enhance the process. An explicit peer review process and objective criteria can defend against unethical or unfair critiques. In addition to benefiting reviewers and the pee