An Assessment of Marketisation of ‘Review’ Through Literature


  • Chandu Lal Chandakar Tsinghua University, Beijing
  • Aiping Chen Renmin University of China



Marketisation of Review, Review Ethics, Research Integrity


This exploratory qualitative study based on multiple-case studies collects reviewers’ comments using a ‘vector manuscript’ that carries 5 obvious mistakes for assessment. On the basis of the synthesized guidelines prescribed for the reviewers, these comments are measured and assessed. The assessment of the collected review comments of conferences, international journals, and that of the institutional level (N=126), suggests that the elements of negligence and marketisation have already infused in the academics of review. Those who were more oriented towards money were found to be 6.9 times more threatening in comparison to those who were not money-oriented. In this study, at the institutional level, those accepting gifts from the student before reviewing the paper are coded as asking for money.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Chandu Lal Chandakar, Tsinghua University, Beijing

PhD Candidate Tsinghua University, Beijing


Aftanas, M. (1988). Theories, models, and standard systems of measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 325–339.

Agresti, A. (2019). An introduction to categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Florida: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Angelo, C. (2004). Ethical issues in journal peer-review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2.

APA. (2011). American psychological association: Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts. Retrieved from

AMS. (2010). American metrological society: Obligations of editors and reviewers in the AMS scientific publication process. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

ASME. (1999). Best practices guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from

Australian Government. (2017). 4. Principles, obligations and conduct during peer review. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

Beall, J. (2016). Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534(7607), 326–326.

BERA. (2018). British education research association: Ethical guidelines for educational research. Retrieved from

BPS. (2000). Code of conduct, ethical principles & guidelines. Retrieved from

BPS. (2014). Code of human research ethics. Retrieved from

Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale?: The marketisation of UK higher education. Everything for Sale?: The Marketisation of UK Higher Education.

BSA. (2002). Statement of Ethical Practice. Retrieved from

Cambridge university. (2019). Ethical standards. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from

Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press.

Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. British Medical Journal, 350, h210.

Cohen, A., Pattanaik, S., Kumar, P., Bies, R. R., de Boer, A., Ferro, A., … Webb, A. J. (2016). Organised crime against the academic peer review system. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 81(6), 1012–1017.

Comer, D. R., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The problem of humiliation in peer review. Ethics and Education, 9(2), 141–156.

COPE. (2013). Council of publication ethics: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

COPE. (2013). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved from

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London England EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

CSE. (2012). Council of science editors: 2.3 Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210(August 2018), 2–21.

Drummond, R. (2003). Misconduct and journal peer review. In G. Fiona & J. Tom (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 118–129). Chennai: BMJ publishing group.

Elizabeth, W., Fiona, G., & Tom, J. (2002). How to survive the review. Chennai: BMJ group publication.

EPA. (2015). Peer review handbook. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from

ELSEVIER. (2015). Publishing Ethics for Editors. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

ESRC. (2010). Peer review rrequently asked questions. Retrieved from

Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480–482.

Fiona, G., & Kay, D. (2003). Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions. In G. Fiona & J. Tom (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 91–117). Chennai: BMJ publishing group.

Fogg, L., & Fiske, D. W. (1993). Foretelling the judgments of reviewers and editors. American Psychologist, 48(3), 296.

Giglio, V. J., & Luiz, O. J. (2017). Predatory journals: Fortify the defences. Nature, 544(7651), 416–416.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Pub.

Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative Peer-Supported Review of Teaching. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 13–31). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Grant Harman. (2010). Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 69–83.

Griffin, P., Care, E., Francis, M., & Scoular, C. (2014). The Role of Assessment in Improving Learning in a Context of High Accountability. In C. P. Wyatt-Smith C., Klenowski V. (Ed.) (pp. 73–87). Dordrecht: Springer, Dordrecht.

Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1509–1528.

Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals : Guidelines for good practice. Blackwell publication.

Healey, M., Ambler, T., Irhammar, M., Kilfoil, W., & Lyons, J. (2014). International Perspectives on Peer Review as Quality Enhancement. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 201–219). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

ICMJE. (n.d.). International committee of medical journals editors: Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.

Kilfoil, W. R. (2014). Peer Review as Quality Assurance. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 105–123). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education.

Leung, D., Law, R., Kucukusta, D., & Guillet, B. D. (2014). How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world’s excellent reviewers. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 46–56.

Lorna, H., & Connie, C. W. (2013). Choosing the case study route. In Using case study in education research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Luo Guizhong. (1979). Using tricks Kongming borrows arrows from enemy soldiers 《用奇谋孔明借箭》. In San Guo Yan Yi 《三国演义》 (pp. 399–407). Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House 《人民文学出版社》.

Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17.

Matsumoto, D. (2009). The Cambridge dictionary of psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.

Merton, R. (1973). The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). London: The university of Chicago Press. Retrieved from

Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Teaching in higher education having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287.

Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. (2010). The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. Routledge.

Monasta, A. (1997). Higher education as the producer, transmitter, and broker of knowledge as well as of competence. Higher Education in Europe, 22(3), 293–301.

Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Definition of vector. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from

Paltridge, B. (2017a). Conclusions. In The Discourse of Peer Review (pp. 183–194). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Paltridge, B. (2017b). Peer Review in Academic Settings. In The Discourse of Peer Review (pp. 1–29). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Prasad, K. (2015). Data analysis with stata. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.

Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2005). A systematic guide to reviewing manuscript. AJR, 185, 1–7.

Richtig, G., Berger, M., Lange-Asschenfeldt, B., Aberer, W., & Richtig, E. (2018). Problems and challenges of predatory journals. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32(9), 1441–1449.

Robert, F., & Suzanne, F. (2003). The effectiveness of journal peer review. In G. Fiona & J. Tom (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed.). Chennai: BMJ publishing group.

Roberts, J. (2016). Predatory Journals: Think before you submit. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 56(4), 618–621.

Rockwell, S. (2005). Ethics of peer review: A guide for manuscript reviewers. New Haven. Retrieved from

Sachs, J., & Parsell, M. (2014). Introduction: The Place of Peer Review in Learning and Teaching. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Sally, D., Ron, I., & Ursula, H. (2004). IES Report 412. Retrieved from

Spencer, D. (2014). Was Moses Peer Observed? The Ten Commandments of Peer Observation of Teaching. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 183–199). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

SRA. (2003). Ethical guidelines. Retrieved from

Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680.

Strielkowski, W. (2017). Predatory journals: Beall’s list is missed. Nature, 544(7651), 416–416.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1996). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. College Composition and Communication, 47, 443.

Taylor & Francis. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

Wager, E., Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to Survive Peer Review. London: BMJ Books.

Wiley. (2017). General and ethical guidelines for reviewers. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from

Wiley. (2018, August). Types of peer review.

Xia, J. (2015). Predatory journals and their article publishing charges. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 69–74.

Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417.

Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications (Vol. 5).




How to Cite

Chandakar, C. L., & Chen, A. (2020). An Assessment of Marketisation of ‘Review’ Through Literature. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, 15, 73–90.