'Double b(l)ind': Peer-review and the politics of scholarship.
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Nurs Philos, 2004, 5 (2), pp. 135 - 146
- Issue Date:
- 2004-07
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | 2004002085.pdf | 1.09 MB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
Abstract The double-blind peer-review of manuscripts for potential publication is a longstanding tradition in the production of scholarship. Nursing has adopted this tradition to secure a place of legitimacy and authority for its scholarship amongst the other disciplines in the academy. However, despite its ubiquity and avowed utility, the peer-review has not generally been the subject of much research let alone intense philosophical scrutiny and debate. This manuscript attempts such an engagement with a view to uncovering specific concerns about the essentially conservative and sometimes restrictive effects the double-blind peer-review produces. Drawing on the deconstructionist writings of Derrida and his acolytes this paper attempts to dig beneath the surface mechanics of the double-blind peer-review and in so doing, expose its rather shaky philosophical foundations. It is written to open debate from others who too, have harboured doubts about its adequacy and supremacy as a technology in the production of (legitimate) knowledge.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: