TARU PUBLICATIONS
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management cover

COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management

(Since 2007)
Hybrid ·Peer-reviewed·ISSN (Online): 2168-930X·ISSN (Print): 0973-7766

WoS  JIF 2026 : 0.6 (Q3)

Powered by:Powered by

Half-Yearly Journal: Publishes research and articles on scientometrics and information management, including bibliometric analysis and quality assurance models.

Issues up to 2022 co-published with and available at:Taylor & Francis Online
EDITOR-CJSIM@tarupublications.com
Taru Online First Current IssueBrowse all Issues
COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management
Open Access Research Article

The value of peer review on the appointment criteria of Universities in Turkey

, , *

* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details

pp. 357–371Vol. 17Issue 2December 2023DOI: 10.47974/CJSIM-2020-0077XML
Published Online:
21 Dec 2023
Article type:
Research Article
Language:
EN
Article no.:
CJSIM-2020-0077
Pages:
357–371

Abstract

Peer review is one of the issues that is emphasised meticulously in scholarly communication. Although it has been criticised from various aspects, there is not yet a structure as an alternative to peer review in the quality control procedures. These procedures in scientific publishing activities are mostly carried out by editors and referees, and sometimes publishers can also contribute. Although peer review has become a widely accepted structure in scientific publishing, there are serious concerns and controversies regarding the extent to which it is valued. Turkey is among the countries that has increased the production of scientific publications over time. However, the issue of how quantitative production is reflected in quality is controversial. In this study, the value attributed to peer reviewing by universities in Turkey is examined with respect to academic appointment criteria. The research findings reveal that some universities score peer reviewing while others do not in their criteria, pointing to the fact that peer reviewing activity is not made within a certain logic. When evaluated in general, it has been determined that the research evaluation system in Turkey is not consistent in terms of the value given to peer review for the appointment criteria of universities.

Keywords

Scholarly communicationRefereeingPeer reviewResearch evaluation policyAcademic appointment criteriaAcademic promotion criteria

References

[1] Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A.O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
[2] Al, U. (2017). Ulusal dergilerde bilimsel kalitenin yükseltilmesi (davetli sunuş). [Increasing scientific quality in national journals] (invited speech) ULAKBİM TR Dizin, Ulusal Akademik Yayıncılık Sempozyumu, November 2-3, 2017, Antalya. https://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~umutal/publications/uay_2017.pdf [accessed 26 July 2022].
[3] Al, U. & Soydal, İ. (2014). Akademinin atıf dizinleri ile savaşı. [The war of academia with citation indexes]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 23-42.
[4] Bolek, M., Bolek, C., Shopovski, J., & Marolov, D. (2022). The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations. Accountability in Research, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2030719
[5] Clarivate. (2022). Web of Science. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search accessed [accessed 15 April 2022].
[6] Demircioğlu, M.Y. & Uz, A. (2013). Üniversitelerarası Kurul üzerine anayasa ve idare hukuku perspektifinden bazı hukuki değerlendirmeler. [Some legal considerations on the Inter-University Council from the perspective of constitutional and administrative law]. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 62(1), 41-72.
[7] DergiPark. (2022). Akademik süreli yayıncılık hakkında önemli hatırlatmalar. [Important reminders about academic periodicals publishing]. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/page/dergiler-icin-onemli-aciklamalar [accessed 26 July 2022].
[8] Huisman, J. & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics 113(1), 633-650.
[9] Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-26.
[10] 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.
[11] Liao, T.F. (2020). Peer review. In: Elman C., Gerring J. and Mahoney J. (eds) The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73-97.
[12] Lyman, R.L. (2013). A three-decade history of the duration of peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(3), 211-220.
[13] McGlinchey, N., Hunter, T., Bromley, J., Fisher, R., Debiec-Waszak, A., & Gaston, T. (2019). Do journal administrators solve the reviewer assignment problem as well as editors? Consideration of reviewer rigour and timeliness. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 37-46.
[14] Millî Folklor. (2021). Ücretli hakemlik uygulaması. [Paid peer-review application]. https://www.millifolklor.com/ucretli-hakemlik-uygulamasi [accessed 17 December 2021].
[15] 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), 132-61.
[16] Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247-258.
[17] Shoham, N. & Pitman, A. (2021). Open versus blind peer review: Is anonymity better than transparency?. BJPsych Advances, 27(4), 247-254.
[18] Sizo, A., Lino, A. Reis, L.P., & Rocha, Á. (2019). An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of scientific articles. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 286-293.
[19] Tonta, Y. (2017). TÜBİTAK Türkiye Adresli Uluslararası Bilimsel Yayınları Teşvik (UBYT) Programının Değerlendirilmesi. [An Evaluation of TÜBİTAK’s Support Program of International Scientific Publications (UBYT)]. Ankara: TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM. https://ulakbim.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/images/Ulakbim/tonta_ubyt.pdf [accessed 15 April 2022].
[20] ULAKBİM. (2022). ÜAK doçentlik başvuruları. [ÜAK associate professorship applications]. https://trdizin.gov.tr/uak-docentlik-basvurulari/ [accessed 15 April 2022].
[21] ÜAK. (2022). Doçentlik başvuru şartları. [Associate professorship application requirements]. https://www.uak.gov.tr/docentlik [accessed 15 April 2022].
[22] ÜAK. (2020). 2020 mart dönemi: Sıkça sorulan sorular ve cevapları. [March 2020 term: Frequently asked questions and answers]. https://www.uak.gov.tr/Documents/docentlik/2020-mart-donemi/2020M_SıkcaSorulanSorularveCevapları_10032020.pdf [accessed 15 April 2022].
[23] YÖK. (2021a). Atanma kriterleri. [Appointment criteria]. https://www.yok.gov.tr/akademik/atanma-kriterleri [accessed 15 April 2022]
[24] YÖK. (2021b). Üniversitelerimiz. [Our universities]. https://www.yok.gov.tr/universiteler/universitelerimiz [accessed 15 April 2022].
[25] Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R.K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100.

Views: 240Downloads: 95Citations: 1