In discussion over at Helen's post, Brit suggested "People tend to get asked to referee when their own papers are cited in the list of references. At least, those are usually the people I ask first." Echoing Steven Gross, I want to reiterate three concern over this practice: i) such referees have an incentive to accept the paper (because it improves their "impact factor"--not a small matter in many research funding environments); ii) this practice encourages echo-chambers among the well-connected; c) this practice encourages 'referee-steering' by authors.
Thus, grant me that, this practice creates a systematic bias (however small) into our disciplinary referee practices. Of course, if the practice encourages more frequent and timely referee reports then it might be worth it. But if, in fact, the practice ensures that a relatively thin slice of the profession does most of the refereeing it may also contribute to slowing the process.
Recent Comments