Peer review

Written evidence submitted by Professor R I Tricker (PR 20)

Response from Professor R. I. (Bob) Tricker [1]

Relevant background

1. I was chairman of the Inquiry into the Prescription Pricing Authority for the Minister of Health, 1976; a member of the Company Law Advisory Committee, UK Department of Trade, 1981 – 1983, a member of the Management and Industrial Relations Committee of the Social Science Research Council, 1973 – 1975, and a council member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, 1979 – 1983.

2. I was founder and first editor of the peer-reviewed research journal Corporate Governance - an international review, then published by Blackwells, Oxford, 1992 – 2000, and am still a member of the editorial board and occasional reviewer and contributor.

3. I have served on the Editorial and Advisory Boards of the following refereed journals: Journal of Business and Financial Accounting (UK), 1963 – 1969, Information and Management (USA), 1976 – 1995, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (USA), 1986 – 1996, Journal of Managerial Auditing (UK), 1987 – 2002, Pacific Accounting Review (NZ), 1989 – 1991, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (USA), 1990 – 1997, The Wiley Series in Information Systems (International), 1990 – 2000, Accounting Education (UK), 1991 – 1997, Journal of Strategic Information Systems (UK), 1991 – 2000, Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting (Hong Kong), 1993 – 1996, The Corporate Governance Quarterly (Hong Kong), 1995 – 1996, Corporate Governance International (Hong Kong),1997 – 2001.

Advantages of peer reviewing

4. The system of peer review has some proven advantages. Sound peer review improves the paper that is finally published by, for example, questioning research methodology, suggesting improvements to the underpinning literature survey, challenging data collection, analysis and the interpretation of results, sharpening the presentation of the final paper, and approving conclusions and recommendations.

5. Peer review can certainly provide a filter against poor research, but it should not be seen as just a gate-keeping mechanism. Professional peer review is an iterative process that improves published papers and can contribute significantly to researchers’ training and development.

6. Double-blind reviewing prevents distortions that could arise from personal prejudice, familiarity, or undue influence.

Drawbacks to peer reviewing

7. The editor, or in some cases an editorial panel, wields considerable power when choosing the reviewers for a paper. As I know from experience, the choice of reviewers can be crucial to a papers eventual publication. However, as long as reviewers remain hidden, this editorial power is secret and unaccountable.

8. Peer reviewers can act as barriers not gateways. The review process can put a straight-jacket on new thinking, alternative insights, and new paradigms when reviewers are hostile to theoretical insights that do not fit their own theoretical position or preconceptions. A good example can be found in the study of corporate governance. The agency theoretical methodology of financial economics has dominated research published in the field over the past 20 years. Whilst this has provided statistically neat and replicable results, the methodology tends to use published data, and researchers have no need to meet real company directors. Consequently, developments in the thinking and practice of the subject have been reactions to corporate collapses which led to corporate governance codes based on conventional wisdom, not serious research.

9. If a subject becomes dominated by a particular theoretical paradigm, it becomes impossible for new thinking and alternative paradigms to be accepted.

10. Whilst double blind reviewing during the review process is desirable, the inevitable secrecy has its drawbacks. Obviously, the author is known as soon as the paper is published, but the reviewers remain anonymous. So the academic community has no way of knowing the calibre, background or theoretical orientation of those who have been involved.

11. Moreover, not infrequently reviewers can deduce who the author is by referring to the multitude of references to the works of a single author cited in the references/bibliography.

12. Another difficulty in peer review is persuading reviewers to spend the time needed if the review process is to be done well. Academic accolades go to published and cited works: reviewers get none.

Possible improvements to current per review practice

13. Rethink secrecy versus transparency in the review process. On publication identify the reviewers, which would highlight any domination by a particular group of researchers or theoretical viewpoint. It would also provide reviewers with some recognition.

14. Dilute the editor’s power to choose reviewers by using an independent panel of reviewers balanced across alternative theoretical positions, or at least make the editor’s responsibility more transparent.

Professor R I Tricker

2 March 2011