Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Academic publishing requires peer review evaluation as part of its system. However, the review process reflects its participants' biases. When a work's topic, conclusions, or methodologies challenge conventional wisdom, established paradigms, or political views, then peer review may act as a form of insidious censorship or pressure to change one's topic, interpretations, conclusions, or methods. The effects of unmodified peer review may stifle discovery, hinder the dissemination of new "truths" that challenge conventional wisdom and political taboos, and ramify beyond institutions of knowledge. Scholars may unwittingly perpetuate social problems by impeding the production and diffusion of knowledge. Ethics, selection of reviewers, and appeal procedures need attention.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cahn, S.M. (1986). Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

Finn, C.E. , Jr. (1989, Winter). The pitfalls of school reform [Review of Disruptive school behavior: Class, race, and culture]. Public Interest, pp. 114-120.

Hanna, J.L. (1988). Disruptive school behavior: Class, race, and culture . New York: Holmes & Meier .

Hill-Burnett, J. (1990). [Review of Disruptive school behavior: Class, race, and culture]. American Anthropologist, 92(1), 219-220.

Irvine, J.J. (1988). [Review of Disruptive school behavior: Class, race, and culture]. Choice, 26(4), 689.

Reynolds, M.C. (1989). Meddlin' and underachievement [Review of Disruptive school behavior: Class, race, and culture]. Contemporary Psychology , 34, 1114-1116.

Shank, R.C. (1988). The creative attitude. New York: Macmillan.

Commentary

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References