Editorial: Re-viewing the Journal Peer Review Process

Since becoming actively involved in the work of the Centre for Education in the Built Environment, I have become increasingly interested in how the ideas of research-informed teaching and teaching scholarship are themselves disseminated, debated and delimited. This interest has led me to turn a critical eye on the ‘business ’ of journal publishing and to consider how the quality of education research is maintained and sustained in the built environment. In an editorial I wrote for CEBE Transactions in 2006 I explored the role of the editor in this process and reflected on some of the practical and ethical challenges associated with the editorial function (Peel, 2006). In particular, I pointed to the power and influence that may be wielded by an editorial team, since editors are clearly in a position to shape and to structure the frames of reference of what constitutes quality research. On the one hand, editors, may, for example, be seen in certain quarters as upholding established traditions and maintaining defined standards. On the other hand, editors may be viewed as safe-guarding and prolonging a particular discourse, or potentially resisting and excluding new and challenging voices. It follows that editors need to be sound reflective practitioners and active listeners