Book Review: How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement

Peer review is a way of deciding what passes muster as good science. It is vital in the vetting of publications for scientific journals, scrutinised by experts in the relevant field. Designed to improve the quality of scientific research, it is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Lamont delves into the sociological aspects of peer review, asking the question “what is excellence?” Her study focuses on peer review panels and how academics go about reviewing papers for the purpose of grant awards.

The rewarding of “excellence” is used throughout the world of academia; a driving force, something to strive for. Lamont investigates the concept of excellence and how it is fostered in higher education via scholarly peer review.

The book reveals what happens behind the scenes in the academic world, where life-changing decisions are made which can make or break careers. The sociology professor pledged confidentiality in order to gain access to watch peer review panels at work.

Although Lamont found that most peer reviewers are dedicated and take their duties extremely seriously, she uncovered numerous failings in the system.

These failings include professors whose judgments are tainted by personal conflicts and interests, and the rewarding of qualities such as fortitude rather than the specified qualities in the grant criteria. Even the devious angle of deal-making between panellists rears its ugly head. One panel made a deal not to award all the fellowships it could have done, purely because the reviewers wanted to leave for the airport.

Lamont wanted to “open the Black Box of peer review”, giving authors of the work being evaluated a better understanding of what happens when the fruits of their labour are being scrutinised. She says, “I also want the older, established scholars – the gatekeepers – to think hard and think again about the limits of what they are doing, particularly when they define ‘what is exciting’ as ‘what most looks like me (or my work)’.”

During her study she also tried to discover whether “excellence” is defined in the same way by different academics, the quality that peer review theoretically should promote. Ultimately Lamont concludes that excellence, as an objective concept, means nothing.

The most frequent flaw she encountered was that of professors being slightly biased in favouring work that addresses their own areas of interest. Lamont says, “People define what is exciting as what speaks to their own personal interest, and their own research.”

‘How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment’ gives an insight into the way a scientist’s mind works when reading their peers’ work, and explores what might inspire them to cite different papers.