Peer review is a process often used in evaluation of applications for publication, funding or academic promotion. It involves other researchers in the field assessing the strength of an output/application and providing feedback.
Expert review of practice research is critical for the long-term success of the field but current peer review systems for research publication, drawn from traditional science models, do not function well for the majority of practice research. In response, some practice research journals are experimenting with new forms of academic peer review that aim to revitalise and refresh the process.
Open peer review
Traditional peer review is a closed and anonymous process, but peer review is evolving in many disciplines and a new system of review has been suggested called open peer review.
Open peer review aims to make the whole process of reviewing research more transparent for both the reviewer and the author, trying to bring greater accountability, and inclusivity to the process. Some of the common aspects of open peer review are:
The editors of Screeenworks who employ an open peer process argue that 'the process of open reviewing is intended to promote an active, concrete dialogue within the community of screen media scholar practitioners as to how our research is constituted, defined and disseminated'.
While the editors of the Journal of Embodied Research have developed a peer review process that is is 'informed by ongoing conversations around artistic research and practice research in Europe, as well as by feminist, queer, and critical race studies perspectives. Informed by these ideas, we associate the anonymity of authors with a particular mode of “objectivity” that is not always preferable. In the context of videographic embodied research, the audiovisual presence of the authors is very often a core part of the method and content of the research, hence we do not ask authors to anonymize their submissions'.
Peer review in practice research journals
There are many interesting examples of peer review processes for practice research publication in emerging open access journals. Many of these journals make use of aspects of open peer review.
| [in]Transition | Uses double, open, non-anonymous peer review reports that are published alongside the final published article. |
| Journal for Artistic Research (JAR) | Employs a 'single blind' review process. The reviewers are anonymous while the names of the authors are known. JAR issues detailed guidance to its peer reviewers which is available here. |
| Journal of Embodied Research | Peer reviewed articles always receive feedback from at least one anonymous peer reviewer, usually two and sometimes three or even four, as well as non-anonymous feedback from the editorial team. The journal does not attempt to anonymize authors. |
| Screenworks | All work submitted undergoes rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and evaluation by at least two anonymous referees. In the case of successful submissions, the reviews are published online alongside the practical work and supporting research statement. |
| PARSE | The peer review process is based on an open review process in which there is no anonymity between the author(s) and the reviewer(s). Each contribution is referred to at least two peer reviewers. |
| VIS - Nordic Journal for Artistic Research | The journal has adopted a collaborative approach to peer-reviewing in which, rather than the process being blind, a dialogue is established between author(s) and reviewer. |
Engaging with open peer review
If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, Screenworks and Journal for Artistic Research (JAR) are both keen to expand their pool of academic reviewers and welcome the interest of possible reviewers. JAR issues detailed guidance on how to perform a peer review which is available here.
If you are on the editorial board of a journal, you may wish to discuss how to make the peer review process more open with your publisher. The paper below is a starting point for considering open peer review for editors and publishers:
Ross-Hellauer, T., Görögh, E. (2019) Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4:4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9