Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics
• Scientific Publishing
• Research Integrity

Background:

• Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet its effectiveness in ensuring research quality is debated.
• Concerns exist regarding reviewer misbehavior, including sabotage of competing work, potentially compromising publication integrity.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify which suboptimal peer review practices most significantly impact the quality of published research.
• To evaluate the efficacy of various editorial strategies in mitigating negative impacts on research quality.

Main Methods:

• Utilized modeling studies to simulate peer review processes and assess the impact of different reviewer behaviors.
• Tested the effectiveness of editorial interventions such as reviewer blacklisting, additional reviewer consultation, reviewer-manuscript pairing, and revision of rejected manuscripts.

Main Results:

• The primary threat to publication quality stems from the acceptance of low-quality manuscripts, rather than the rejection of high-quality ones.
• Strategies like bypassing underperforming reviewers and consulting additional reviewers can mitigate, but not eliminate, quality issues.
• Pairing manuscripts with reviewers less likely to engage in biased rejections and permitting revisions of rejected papers reduce the rejection of above-average manuscripts.

Conclusions:

• Current peer review systems offer limited incentives for unbiased reviewer conduct.
• While editors can implement helpful strategies, fundamental structural reforms are essential for enhancing the impartiality and quality of scientific peer review.