Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors
A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.
KeywordsPeer review Quality Fairness Integrity Ethics Reliability Bias Editors Publication
David B. Resnik is Associate Editor of Accountability in Research. Susan A. Elmore is Editor and Editor-in-Chief of Toxicologic Pathology. This research is supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NIH, or U.S. government.
Conflict of interest
The authors disclose no conficts of interest.
- Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (2014). Code of Conduct. http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.
- Holy Bible, King James Version. (1991). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2014). Recommendations. http://www.icmje.org. Accessed 31 Oct 2014.
- LaFollette, M. (1992). Stealing Into Print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Rennie, D. (2003). Misconduct and journal peer review. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 118–129). London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar
- Resch, K. I., Ernst, E., & Garrow, J. (2000). A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93(4), 164–167.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D. B. (2011). A troubled tradition. American Scientist, 99(1), 24–28.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 305–310.Google Scholar
- Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Strayhorn, J., McDermott, J. F., & Tanguay, P. (1993). An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Acacemy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Journal of the American Acacemy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 150(6), 947–952.Google Scholar