Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reviewing Peer Review: A Flawed System: With Immense Potential

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

Peer review is a systematic approach to assessing research. Although it is widely employed at academic institutions and generally held in high regard by the scientific community, many components of the system are poorly understood. The potential benefits to research are uncertain, which has prompted critics to question the veracity of the process, propose alternatives, and even consider abolishing it. Nevertheless, existing research demonstrates the practicality of peer review; the future of not only peer review, but science in general, will increasingly depend on humankind's ability to investigate not only what is measured in the external world, but also the means by which verifiable fact is established in the pursuit of knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. What is peer review? Int J Comput Appl. July 2014. https://www.ijcaonline.org/what-is-peer-review.

  2. Heesen R, Bright L. Is peer review a good idea? Br J Phil Sci. 2021;72(3):635–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tennant J, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. Electron J Int Fed Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;25(3):227–43.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McGill B. As a peer reviewer are you gatekeeping or editing? (March 2017). https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/as-a-peer-reviewer-are-you-gatekeeping-or-editing/.

  6. Baldwin M. Peer review. In: Encyclopedia of the history of science. Carnegie Mellon University; 2019. https://lps.library.cmu.edu/ETHOS/plugins/archive_plugin/article/19/.

  7. Drummond R. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. In: Peer review in health sciences. 1999. pp. 1–13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285649250_Editorial_peer_review_Its_development_and_rationale.

  8. Koshy K, Fowler A, Gundogan B, Agha R. Peer review in scholarly publishing part A: why do it? Int J Surg Oncol. 2018;3(2):e56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dondio P, Casnici N, Grimaldo F, Gilbert N, Squazzoni F. The ‘invisible hand’ of peer review: the implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal. J Inform. 2019;13(2):708–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodman S, Berlin J, Fletcher S, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chrisstenbery T. Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses. Natl Library Med. 2011;23(1):15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fletcher R, Fletcher S. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Sci Eng Ethics. 1997;3(1):35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E. Effects of editorial peer review. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287(3):2784–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferris L, Fletcher R. Conflict of interest in peer-review medical journals: the world association of medical editors position on a challenging problem. J Young Pharmacists. 2010;2(2):113–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Knoepfler P. Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends Genet. 2015;31(5):221–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2015_fall/inls700_001/Readings/Ware2008-PRCPeerReview.pdf.

  19. Martijn P, Joris J, Kon M. Who benefits from peer review? an analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(5):1461–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shattell M, Chinn P, Thomas S, Cowling R. Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2009;42:58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smart P. Peer review: an expensive business. Learn Publ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fresco-Santalla A, Hernández-Pérez T. Current and evolving models of peer review. Ser Libr. 2014;67(4):373–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.985415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harnad S. The invisible hand of peer review. Nature. 1998. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/nature2.html.

  25. Batagelj V, Feligoj A, Squazzoni F. The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review. Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):503–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2522-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Suls J, Martin R. The air we breathe: a critical look at practices and alternativesin the peer-review process. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(1):40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kreigeskorte N, Walther A, Deca D. An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Brien B, Artino Jr A, Costello J, Drie E. Transparency in peer review: exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0260558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shulz R, Barnett A, Bernard R, Brown N, Byrne J, Eckmann P, et al. Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Res Notes. 2022;15:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kenyon C. Is it time to review, the review? Cosmos. 2022. https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/peer-review-peril/.

  31. Williams S. Scientists, publishers debate paychecks for peer reviewers. Scientist. 2020. https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/scientists-publishers-debate-paychecks-for-peer-reviewers-68101.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pace University, New York, NY, USA

    Mark Lauria

Authors
  1. Mark Lauria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Lauria.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lauria, M. Reviewing Peer Review: A Flawed System: With Immense Potential. Pub Res Q 39, 178–190 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09943-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09943-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation