Double-Blind Peer Review: How to Slaughter a Sacred Cow

Margit Osterloh () and Alfred Kieser
Additional contact information
Margit Osterloh: Zeppelin University
Alfred Kieser: Zeppelin University

A chapter in Incentives and Performance, 2015, pp 307-321 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract The performance evaluation system in academia has been much criticized during the last years. But there are few suggestions how to improve it. In particular double blind pre-publication peer review has become a sacred cow that has not been touched. We analyze the flaws of the present system and discuss open post-publication peer review as a promising alternative.

Keywords: Impact Factor; Scientific Progress; Peer Review System; Scholarly Discourse; Signed Review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-09785-5_19

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783319097855

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_19

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().