Problems, Pitfalls, and Promise in the Peer-Review Process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009)

In their critique of the peer-review process, Trafimow and Rice (2009, this issue) dramatize a number of ways in which the review process can go awry. On the whole, I agree that the issues highlighted by the authors are indeed problems worthy of careful consideration. However, I fear that their treatment of these issues could send mixed and misleading messages to would-be reviewers about what constitutes proper reviewing behavior, in part because the authors had little to say on this topic. In the present commentary, I attempt to address this omission by discussing qualities of a good review and by distinguishing several responsibilities in the peer-review process that lie uniquely with the editor and the author. Finally, I identify three general strategies for improving the peer-review process that center on providing better, more formalized training of reviewers; increasing accountability of both editors and reviewers; and reducing burden on the peerreview system.