How Journals Should Address the Challenges in the Peer Review Process Part 2

Posted on : March 20th 2023

Welcome to the second part of a two-part article, How Journals Should Address the Challenges in the Peer Review Process. In this part, we will examine the challenges and the ideas for improving the peer review process. You can find it here if you haven’t gone through the first part . In the first part, we explored the peer review process and the inherent contradictions in the process.

Addressing the core themes or challenges inherent in the peer review process is the bare minimum requirement for removing the apprehensions, and increasing the accountability and justification, in the peer review process. To get a better understanding, let us start by probing the challenges.

Peer Review Process Challenges

The challenges begin with the image that the peer review process is objective, reliable, and consistent. This overpowering image makes it hard to accept that it is subjective and inconsistent because reviewers will inevitably entertain differing views on a scientific paper. This inconsistency makes peer review appear a whimsical or even, at times, a willful process.

Another aspect that distorts the peer-review process is gender bias. Multiple studies have shown there is a predisposition to choose male reviewers across scientific fields. Consequently, only a few manuscripts score high-quality reviews and are being reviewed by the most appropriate reviewers. A fallout of gender bias is that the fairness of the peer review process is called into question.

However, not all the ills in peer review can be laid at the feet of reviewers because a majority of the reviewers start with an empathy mindset.

However, some authors who test the rigor of the process by fabricating data and committing ethical violations offset even the best intentions. This is relatively rare, but the shadow of possibility means the reviewers must be on their toes for honest errors and deliberate fraud. Furthermore, there have been instances where an author, reviewer, or journal editor has been found manifesting competing interests. The mere hint of competing interest(s) produces an undertow that leads to questions regarding the authenticity of the review process because it could potentially influence the outcome.

Despite these ills, 91 percent of the respondents to a study across all subject areas that their published article was better than the version they submitted before peer review https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/. However, there is no denying that a lot can be done to improve the peer review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer. From a journal’s point of view, improving the peer review process leads to only high-quality articles being published, enhancing the journal's credibility.

Hence, improving the existing process is critical for all the stakeholders in academic publishing.

Ideas to Improve the Peer Review Process

To begin with, some of the more glaringly obvious challenges in the peer review process can be eliminated considerably by practicing good research practices.

For instance, reviewers should always adhere to the journals' guidance, criteria, and processes. They should maintain integrity, objectivity, and impartiality across the peer-review process. Furthermore, the reviewers should aim to dispense constructive criticism, i.e., provide suggestions for improving the scientific paper in a balanced way to achieve scientific rigor.

Another important aspect is that the reviewers should make it their priority to be timely in meeting the journal deadlines and responding to the authors' revisions and queries. Also, reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest in advance, maintain the research's confidentiality, and adhere to data protection and intellectual property policies and regulations. If and when reviewers believe there is misconduct and breach of ethics, they should bring it to the journal's attention.

The role of the authors in ensuring the robustness of the peer review process is also crucial to improving it. To begin with, they should always adhere to the highest level of research ethics and standards, in line with requirements set out by regulatory bodies and the journal's research ethics policy and procedures. In addition, when submitting work for peer review, applicants or authors should refer to the specific guidance, criteria, and processes and should not try to influence the process by attempting to identify or approach peer reviewers directly or indirectly.

Furthermore, peer reviewers might be trained to enhance the quality of the reviews and the turnaround time. Several training programs, such as open review, co-review, etc., are already being conducted. Though examining the efficiency of these programs is beyond the scope of the article, most reviewers rate the feedback they receive from the journal editors highly for improving their reviewing capabilities.

Journals can also incentivize reviewers by paying for their time or establish a quid pro quo, where reviewers who meet agreed-upon deadlines are assured of a faster turnaround of their manuscripts. Another way they could try is to recognize the peer reviewers formally for their reviews.

Several journals have moved towards double-blind reviews to ensure impartiality and potential biases, including conscious and unconscious gender biases from influencing the reviewer's opinion. The downside is it still needs to correct the glaring lack of women in the editorial and the review process. This bias can only be eliminated by having more diverse and inclusive institutions and processes.

Currently, there is opacity in the scholarly publishing process. To dispel the fog, journals should ensure transparency across the process of publishing a scientific article. Furthermore, journals should ensure it is applied across all published content. Where practices deviate from those widely used in the industry, journals should transparently communicate the deviations.

Today, the academic publishing sector is rigorously promoting inclusivity, diversity, and accessibility in every aspect of the publishing process. Journals should uphold these three pillars of equity by ensuring scholarly merit is behind every publishing decision. This adherence to scholarly excellence will percolate into the peer-review process and form the basis of all improvements in the process.

Conclusion

The scientific community is experiencing a retraction crisis that draws renewed attention to weaknesses in the peer-review process that people have been aware of for years. Replacing a process—widely acknowledged by the scientific community as still being robust—will do more harm than good. However, it would be foolhardy to turn a blind eye to journal editors, reviewers, and authors' challenges with peer review.

A significant improvement in the peer-review process would require a change in attitude. For the peer review process to evolve, best practices in quality control from other industries or innovative technologies must be actively evaluated and pursued. Innovative data models should be used to analyze the process, and the insights derived from the data should be consistently tested. In addition, adopting reliable metrics and transparent standards regarding the peer-review process is essential for improving the standards and rigor of the scientific literature.

There is widespread concern regarding the quality of scientific papers. As peer review plays a critical role, all the stakeholders should regularly audit the processes and look for opportunities to continuously improve based on lessons learned.