View Single Post
  #2  
Old 08 September 2018, 02:52 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,440
Default

Quote:
“As most senior scholars know, university presses peer-review their books by relying on other senior scholars to comment on the quality of the work,” said Greg Britton, its editorial director. “Before it was accepted for publication two decades ago, this book would have been selected by the editor, undergone a rigorous round of single-blind peer review, and then approved by a faculty editorial board.”

He added: “Presses do not, however, fact-check their books as Lieberman and Schatzberg acknowledge. More to the point, Professor Maines has always maintained that her assertions were a hypothesis open to further exploration.”

...

“One of the big takeaways for me is that the peer-reviewed process is flawed. Peer review is no substitute for fact-checking,” she added. “We need to fix this, and we need to start checking other people’s work, especially in history.”
What I don't get is what peer review (in the humanities?) is, if it doesn't involve fact-checking. Do they just check the spelling?
Reply With Quote