Anonyme Kritik : Peer Review auf dem Prüfstand der Wissenschaftsforschung

Criticizm is a definition criterion of science. Politeness dominates in public accessible scientific and scholarly communication. Critique is practised in secret corners – among colleagues who are friends and at the hand-in of manuscripts or grant applications. Peer review and artificially excessive refusal rates serve as prestigious ornaments, but peer review as a standardised examination system does not exist. The heterogenity of the different peer review variations depends on their – always floating with demand and offer – functions. Peer review processes fail under the spotlight of plagiarism, fraud and camouflage. Several plump manipulations were not discovered by evaluators, but by insiders, readers and the media. Various evaluators were involved in fraud affairs themselves. Additionally for multi-functionaries, "cyptamnesia" (unconscious plagiarism) is nearly unavoidable. The numerous negative empirical reports about peer review are based on the following research design: "experimental", reconstructions and replicas, surveys of evaluated appliers, accordance "measurements" of referee decisions combined with the frequency of citations. Suggestions of reform demand transparency, or the enforcement of the double blinded evaluation. I propose the modernization of the oldfashioned practises of editors and referees: systematic support of editor and evaluator competences, especially for working with databases and methods of information science. Several cases of camouflage would have been discovered by consulting full text versions of older articles of the authors. It would have been possible for a long time already to use plagiarism inpection programmes and "related document" functions, but criticizm should be an every day use of the scientist and should not be delegated to others. Openess and pluralism of the scientific fields should remain the ultimate ambition