Çift Kör Hakemlik Sistemi Ne Kadar Kör?

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 328 - 338, 31.08.2021

Cem Eyerci

Abstract

Akademik süreçlerin önemli bir aracı olan hakemlik sistemi sadece akademik çalışmaların yayınlanmaya uygunluklarının belirlenmesinde
değil, araştırma bursu ve akademik pozisyon başvuruları ile terfi taleplerinin değerlendirmesindeki etkin rolüyle de vazgeçilmez olarak
görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte son yıllarda kendisi akademik çalışmaların konusu hâline gelen sistem çeşitli yönlerden eleştirilmekte,
makale yazarı ve hakemlerin niteliklerine bağlı yanlılıklar içerdiğini ortaya koyan çalışmalar yapılmakta ve bu olumsuzlukları giderebileceği
düşünülen alternatifler aranmaktadır. Bu çalışmada iktisadi ve idari bilimler ve siyasal bilgiler fakültelerinin çıkardığı, TR Dizin kapsamında
olan ve son üç yıldaki sayılarında makalelerin başvuru ve kabul tarihlerini yayınlayan dergiler taranmış ve makalelerin ortalama kabul
sürelerinin yazım dili, yazar sayısı, yazarların unvanı, cinsiyeti ve bir üniversite mensubu olup olmadıklarına göre farklılaşmadığı sonucuna
ulaşılmıştır. Öte yandan, aynı alanda yayın yapan benzer nitelikteki dergilerin ortalama kabul sürelerinde büyük farklar gözlenmiştir. Daha
da önemlisi, makale yazarlarının dergiyi çıkaran üniversiteye mensup olmaları makale kabul sürelerini anlamlı düzeyde kısaltabilmektedir.
Bu durum çift kör hakemlik sürecinin editörlerce işletilen aşamalarında önemli ölçüde yanlılık oluştuğu, bazı yazarların makaleleri için
yanlılığa sebep olacak şekilde hakem seçildiği veya editörlerin hakemlerle süreci etkileyecek şekilde iletişim kurduğu anlamına gelmektedir

Keywords

Akademik hakemlikte yanlılık, Çift kör hakemlik, TR Dizin

Thanks

Çalışma taslağını okuyarak görüşlerini ileten Ömer Demir'e teşekkür ederim.

How Blind is Double Blind Review?

Abstract

The peer-review system as a critical tool in academic processes is regarded to be essential. It is not used only to evaluate the manuscripts
submitted to the journals but also in tenure decisions, academic promotions, and grant applications. However, during the last few decades,
the system has also become a subject of academic research and criticized from various aspects. Many scholars studied the process and
presented biases emerging due to the characteristics of the authors and reviewers. In this paper, the journals published by the faculties of
economics and administrative sciences and the faculties of political sciences and indexed by TR Dizin are studied. It is observed that the
language of the article, number, title, gender, and institutional affiliation of the authors do not influence the acceptance period. However,
there is a difference between the average acceptance periods of the journals, which are quite similar. Moreover, being a faculty member of
the publisher provides a significantly shorter acceptance period on average. The reason for such differentiation may be either the existence
of a considerable extent of bias at the editorial stages of the process or the communication of the editors with the reviewers in a way that
influences the process.

Keywords

Bias in peer-review, Double blind peer-review, TR Dizin

References

• Akça, S., & Akbulut, M. (2020). Bilimsel İletişimin Görünmeyen Eli: Hakemlik. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 34(3), 559-563.
• Al, U., & Soydal, I. (2017). Publication lag and early view effects in information science journals. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(2), 118-130.
• Aldırmaz, Y. (2020). Türkiye’de Akademide Cinsiyet Eşit(siz)liği Raporu. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342511353_Turkiye%27de_Akademide_Cinsiyet_Esitsizligi_Raporu_2020_Gender_Inequality_Report_at_the_Academy_in_Turkey_2020.
• Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. İçinde B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (C. 45, ss. 197-245). Medford, New Jersey: Information Today/American Society for InformationScience & Technology.
• Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1323-1329.
• Clarivate Web of Science. (2018). Publons Global State of Peer Review.
• da Silva, J. A. T., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2017). Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics, 110(1), 365-370.
• Dilek-Kayaoğlu, H., & Gülle, M. T. (2015). Türkiye’de Toplumsal Bilimler ve İnsan Bilimleri Dergilerinde Hakemlik Süreci: Yazar, Hakem ve Editör Bakış Açılarından Bir İnceleme. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 29(3), 391-342.
• Fox, C. W., Thompson, K., Knapp, A., Ferry, L. A., Rezende, E. L., Aimé, E., & Meyer, J. (2019). Double‐blind peer review—An experiment. Functional Ecology, 33, 4-6.
• Gans, J. S., & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179.
• García, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2020). Confirmatory bias in peer review. Scientometrics, 123(1), 517-533.
• Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.
• Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife, 6.
• Hengel, E. (2017). Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. Cambridge Working Paper Economics: 1753 University of Cambridge.
• Hill, S., & Provost, F. (2003). The myth of the double-blind review? Author identification using only citations. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 5(2), 179-184.
• Jan, R., & Zainab, T. (2018). The Impact Story of Retracted Articles. Program adı: 5th International Symposium on Emerging Trends and Technologies in Libraries and Information Services.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.
• Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.
• MacDonald, F. (2016). Scientific papers that were rejected before going on to win a Nobel prize. Science Alert, https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize. Son erişim: 21.02.2021.
• Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive therapy and research, 1(2), 161-175.
• Mehmani, B. (2016). Is open peer review the way forward. https://www. elsevier. com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward. Son erişim: 21.02.2021.
• Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425-431.
• Moylan, E. (2019). Progressing Towards Transparency – More Journals Join Our Transparent Peer Review Pilot. https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/progressing-towards-transparency-more-journals-join-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot. Son erişim: 21.02.2021.
• Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132-161.
• Murray, D., Siler, K., Larivière, V., Chan, W. M., Collings, A. M., Raymond, J., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review. BioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/400515v2.abstract.
• Oswald, A. J. (2008). Can we test for bias in scientific peer-review? IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Papers, No. 3665.
• Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-195.
• Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1420-1423.
• Rennie, D. (2003). Editorial peer review: İts development and rationale. Peer review in health sciences, 2(1), 1-13.
• Sciencematters. (2018). What is triple blindness? https://www.sciencematters.io/help/triple-blindness. Son erişim: 21.02.2021.
• Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: Reform or revolution?: Time to open up the black box of peer review. British Medical Journal, 315, 759-760.
• Sokal, A. (2010). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy and culture. Oxford University Press.
• Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., Farjam, M., Marusic, A., Mehmani, B., Willis, M., … Grimaldo, F. (2021). Peer review and gender bias: A study on 145 scholarly journals. Science advances, 7(2).
• Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12708-12713.
• Töreci, K. (2005). Yayın etiği. Akademik Gıda, 3(5), 24-44.
• Walker, R., Barros, B., Conejo, R., Neumann, K., & Telefont, M. (2015). Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: A case study. F1000Research (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6012.2, 4.
• Waltman, L. (2020). Quantitative Science Studies launches transparent peer review pilot. http://issi-society. org/blog/posts/2020/september/quantitative-sciencestudies-launches-transparent-peer-review-pilot. Son erişim: 21.02.2021.
• Yankauer, A. (1991). How blind is blind review? American Journal of Public Health, 81(7), 843-845.