Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 1:1 (2020) ► pp.51–65

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Perspectives

Peer review

Objective screening or wishful thinking?

 | University of East Anglia
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What’s it for?
  • 3.What’s not to like?
    • 3.1Reviewer decisions (really) matter
    • 3.2Long decision delays
    • 3.3Bias and subjectivity
    • 3.4Condescension and rudeness
    • 3.5Skulduggery and dishonesty
  • 4.So what’s to be done?
    • 4.1Train peer reviewers
    • 4.2Reward peer reviewers
    • 4.3Restructure peer reviewing
  • 5.Some conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (55)
References
APA (2018). Summary report of journal operations. American Psychologist, 73(5), 683–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S. (2010). We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 13, 2010.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornman, L., & Mutz, L. (2014). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1288–1292.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, Oct. 25, 2018. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C. (2012). Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science, October 2012. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4(1), e40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M. (2003). Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 181, 375–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coniam, D. (2012). Exploring reviewer reactions to papers submitted to academic journals. System. 401, 544–553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 22–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeCoursey, T. (2006). The pros and cons of open peer review: Should authors be told who their reviewers are? Nature. 2006. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernst, E., & Resch, K. L. (1994). Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 124(2), 178–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2003). The effectiveness of editorial peer review. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 62–75). London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 2801, 237–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grove, J. (2018). Half of UK academics ‘suffer stress-linked mental health problems’. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6 July, 2018. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. H. (2019). Peer review bias: A critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670–676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud – Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 3731, 2393–2395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2011). Peer review in scientific communications. Eighth Report of Session 2010–2012. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howard, G. (2012). Peer review as boundary work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(3), 322–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the production of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic disadvantage. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 58–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007(Issue 2), Art. No.: MR000016.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwan, B. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 381, 207–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 641, 2–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–280). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 641, 132–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalogue. <[URL]> (15 June 2019).
O’Connor, E., Cousar, M., Lentini, J., Castillo, M., Halm, K., & Zeffiro, T. (2017). Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 381, 230–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okike, K., Kocher, M. S., Mehlman, C. T., Heckman, J. D., & Bhandari, M. (2008). Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 90(11), 2432–2437. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it? International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1) 6–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The discourse of peer review. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perez-Llantada, C. (2014). Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalization. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prechelt, L., Graziotin, D., & Méndez Fernández, D. (2017). A community’s perspective on the status and future of peer review in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 30 October, 2017. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Preston, A., & Culley, T. (2017). Formal recognition for peer review will propel research forward. LSE Impact Blog, 1 June, 2017. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Publishing Research Consortium. (2016). Peer review survey 2015. Bristol: Mark Ware Consulting.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reller, T. (2016). Elsevier publishing – A look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier Connect. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Research Information Network. (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Rigby, J., Cox, D., & Julian, K. (2018). Journal peer review: A bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1087–1105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., & Daniels, S. R. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 2951, 1675–1680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 1231, 1964–1969. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3): 157–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saposnik, C., Ovbiagele, C., Raptis, C., Fisher, C., & Johnston, C. (2014). Effect of English proficiency and research funding on acceptance of submitted articles to Stroke journal. Stroke, 45(6), 1862–1868. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(10): 507–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sciullo, N., & Duncan, M. (2019). Professionalizing peer review: Suggestions for a more ethical and pedagogical review process. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 501, 248–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sense About Science. (2009). Peer Review Survey 2009: Full Report. <[URL]> [author query, link no longer available]
SJR. (2017). Scimago Journal rankings. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2009). The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 40–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tardy, C. (2019). We are all reviewer 2: A window into the secret world of peer review. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp. 271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor & Francis. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. A white paper. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waggenknecht, D. (2018). Unhelpful, caustic and slow: The academic community should rethink the way publications are reviewed. LSE Impact Blog, 22 June, 2018. <[URL]> (20 February, 2020).
Ward, J. E., & Donnelly, N. (1998). Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC? Medical Journal of Australia, 1691, 623–624. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (4th ed.). Oxford: STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers – Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 291, 41–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Paltridge, Brian
2024. Language in Manuscript Reviewing. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Schlein, Candace & James N. Corcoran
2024. Emerging Scholars’ Writing for Publication. In Active and Engaging Classrooms, ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Kuteeva, Maria
2023. Knowledge flows and languages of publication. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 4:1 ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Vasconcelos, Anselmo Ferreira
2023. The challenge of publishing a paper: an autoethnographic study. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 21:1 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Guinda, Carmen Sancho
2022. The Tug-Of-War of Journal Editing: Trust and Risk in Focus. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Hultgren, Anna Kristina
2022. Certifying Knowledge Under Neoliberalism: Global Inequality and Academic Wellbeing. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Hyland, Ken
2022. Preface: Gatekeepers or Facilitators?. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hynninen, Niina
2022. Opening up the peer review process. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 3:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Soler, Josep
2021. Linguistic injustice in academic publishing in English. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 2:2 ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Fazel, Ismaeil & Joel Heng Hartse
2020. Gray areas of academic publishing. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 1:2 ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue