Peer Review, a book by david Shatz

[Myword]

   I am reading this 2004 book PEER REVIEW. Anyone read it?
Pro and con...mostly faults with it. Even worse today than in 2004.
Overall, the book is critical and confirms my bad suspicions. Shatz emphasizes science and humanities.
Almost every problem mentioned on this forum occurs repeatedly.

The irony I suppose is that articles published may be unread anyway or very cursory. By read, might they mean the abstract only?

[Sun_Worshiper]

I've never read it, but could you elaborate on the faults?

[Myword]

 The faults are too numerous, most of the book

Reviewer bias for many reasons. Editor's bias of the author, who is from an ordinary university and is not notable in field.  Bias against topic of work. Articles rejected then accepted by prestigious journals and even won Nobel Prizes.

Mostly negative bias, not positive. Every issue mentioned on this forum. It is an appalling evaluation of blind reviewing that has not changed. I see articles published in my field that add nothing to the field and irrelevant to the journal itself. The system validates the status quo accepted opinions and ideas, nothing new. Editors may send articles to journals, knowing it will be rejected.

[Hibush]

If you are really interested in this topic, you'll want to participate in Peer Review Week next week.
https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/

[Myword]

 Is this primarily for science subjects?


Maybe it should be called "Appeared Reviewed"  ha!