Earlier this year, the STM Association released a draft of taxonomy for peer review aimed at standardizing definitions and terminology. The Scholarly Kitchen brought this interesting topic to our attention in their article, “Towards a Shared Peer-Review Taxonomy: An interview with Joris van Rossum and Lois Jones.”
This shared taxonomy is seen by many as necessary to build an evidence base for strategic investments and policy decisions, as well as to improve journal transparency and evaluation processes. Although, there are some who see the limited scope of the taxonomy and a lack of measurement of certain aspects of the peer review process.
The author in this article interviews people who speak on why they think the taxonomy was needed, whether the taxonomy is fit for purpose and what, if anything, about peer review needs to change. It is an interesting dialogue that offers a different perspective and worth the time to read.
However, one comment jumped out to me at least. “Reviewers are first and foremost individuals who are donating their time to improve science, so I think it’s important to continue listening to what they think needs to be fixed and where we need to go,” said Lois Jones, peer review manager at the American Psychological Association.
Melody K. Smith
Sponsored by Access Innovations, the world leader in taxonomies, metadata, and semantic enrichment to make your content findable.
