In this essay, I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative peer-review processes and the rationale and evidence used by Dunleavy (2021). To move the discussion forward, I end this response with a call to devise a study that would test some of the empirical claims associated with the modified traditional peer-review process I originally proposed (Caputo, 2019) and the one advanced by Dunleavy (2021).
ArmstrongJ. S. (1982). Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 197–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183
CaputoR. K. (2018). Connecting the dots: A social work academician’s memoir of intellectual and career development. Archway Publishing.
4.
CaputoR. K. (2019). Peer review: A vital gatekeeping function and obligation of professional scholarly practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 100(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1044389418808155
5.
DunleavyD.J. (2021). The cultivation of social work knowledge: Toward a more robust system of peer review. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894211012243
6.
EdwardsI. R. (2021). Personal email correspondence between me and Professor Edwards, the editor of International Journal of Risk and Safety Medicine, regarding my inquiry about the peer review process.
7.
FranklandJ.RayM. A. (2017). Traditional versus open access scholarly journal publishing: An economic perspective. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.1.5
8.
HodgeD. R.YuM.KimA. (2019). Assessing the quality and prestige of disciplinary social work journals: A national study of faculty perceptions. Research on Social Work Practice, 30, 451–459. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1049731519890402
JureidiniJ. N.McHenryL. B.MansfieldP. R. (2008). Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of study 329. International Journal of Risk & Safety Medicine, 20, 73–81. http://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-2008-0426
11.
KellerM. B.RyanN. D.StroberM.KleinR. G.KutcherS. P.BirmaherB.McCaffertyJ. P. (2001). Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(7), 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200107000-00010
12.
MayM. (2016). An expanded approach to evaluating open access journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47, 307–327. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.4.307
13.
PetersD. P.CeciS. J. (1982). Peer-review practices in psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183
