3 ms·
In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would
by car_analogy 5y ago
In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic.
If NYBR reviewers mostly review books by other NYBR reviewers, while ignoring the tremendous amount of other quality authors and literature, that is likewise problematic.
Unless one speciously defines the type of book that NYBR would review as its own genre (analogous to a researchers field), shrinking the candidate literature down what NYBR reviews.
- aahortwwy 5y ago> In peer review, if a small clique of authors reviewed each-other's articles favorably, while ignoring, and being ignored, by the rest of their field, that would be ethically problematic. The comparison to peer review is perfect, because exactly this happens across many areas of research. Any area where the pool of potential reviewers is small enough that everyone (sort of) knows everyone else, the process tends to get corrupted by concerns over personal networks, careers, grant funding, etc. etc. Much as prestigious book review cliques get corrupted by networks, careers, access to publishers, etc. etc.