In this paper, I examine journal peer review by focusing on factors that potentially hamper its sound functioning. I argue that scientific literature is not only skewed by the individual level biases of reviewers acting as gatekeepers, but also by the institutional context in which peer review operates. I show that peer review and its efficacy in improving the quality of published work should not be evaluated without heeding the different forms of academic publishing and the role that publishing plays in academic career development.

You do not currently have access to this content.