Skin in the Game: Personal Accountability and Journal Peer Review

Area of Science:

• Psychology of Science
• Scholarly Publishing Ethics

Background:

• Questionable research practices (QRPs) can undermine scientific integrity.
• Peer review is a critical gatekeeping mechanism in scientific publishing.
• Understanding factors influencing reviewer behavior is essential for improving research quality.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how reviewer roles (coauthor vs. peer reviewer) affect the likelihood of requesting clarification on potential QRPs.
• To examine the impact of review anonymity (open vs. blind review) and reviewer gender on seeking clarification for QRPs.

Main Methods:

• Two preregistered studies were conducted.
• Study 1: Participants role-played as either coauthors or peer reviewers evaluating a manuscript with potential QRPs.
• Study 2: Participants were assigned to either an open-review or blind-review condition.

Main Results:

• Participants acting as coauthors were more likely to request clarification on QRPs than those acting as peer reviewers.
• Men in the open-review condition reported a higher likelihood of seeking clarification on QRPs compared to men in the blind-review condition.
• No significant gender difference was observed in the blind-review condition.

Conclusions:

• Motivational factors, such as role and review conditions, appear to influence reviewer vigilance regarding QRPs.
• Findings suggest potential biases in the peer review process that may warrant adjustments to improve scientific rigor.
• Suggestions are proposed for enhancing peer review practices to better address potential QRPs.