Banishing Bad-Mannered Reviews: The Case for Eliminating Substandard Feedback
Peer review has long been the gold standard for determining the suitability of academic papers for publication. However, recent revelations have shed light on one of its major flaws: the prevalence of bad manners and unprofessional conduct among reviewers. This issue was brought to the forefront in a YouTube video released by IOP Publishing, a well-known society-owned publisher of over 90 journals based in Bristol, UK.
The video, part of the activities for Peer Review Week, featured four scientists holding placards displaying rude, inappropriate, or irrelevant comments they received as early-career researchers. Despite facing such discouraging feedback, these scientists went on to achieve remarkable success in their respective fields. This highlights the resilience and determination required to overcome the negative impact of unprofessional peer reviews.
A study published in 2019 revealed that six in ten researchers in the international science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) community have encountered unprofessional reviews, with seven in ten receiving multiple instances of such feedback. While some individuals like Akhlesh Lakhtakia, an esteemed electromagnetics researcher, were able to use these experiences as fuel for further success, others struggled with the long-term effects on their confidence, productivity, and career trajectories.
The detrimental effects of rude reviews are particularly pronounced among individuals from historically underrepresented groups in STEM, such as women, non-binary individuals, and those from ethnic minorities. These groups are more likely to report a decline in confidence as scientists and face setbacks in their professional advancement due to harsh criticism. The impact of unprofessional reviews on these individuals underscores the urgent need for a shift towards more constructive and supportive feedback in academic publishing.
Laura Feetham-Walker, the reviewer-engagement manager at IOP Publishing, emphasizes the importance of addressing mean-spirited peer-review comments and fostering a culture of respect and professionalism within the scientific community. She advocates for open conversations about the prevalence of rude reviews and the steps that can be taken to mitigate their negative consequences.
In response to the growing awareness of this issue, publishers like IOPP have implemented measures to combat unprofessional reviewing. Editors play a crucial role in identifying and addressing problematic comments in reviews, rescinding them if necessary, and providing feedback to reviewers to improve their skills. Additionally, initiatives like free peer-review training courses aim to support early-career researchers in navigating the peer-review process effectively.
The introduction of transparent peer review (TPR) and double-anonymous (DA) peer review has also contributed to reducing bias and fostering a more respectful review environment. By making the peer-review process more transparent and ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, publishers are working towards eliminating rude and unprofessional comments from the scholarly discourse.
Despite these advancements, challenges remain in promoting widespread adoption of TPR and DA peer review. While the benefits of these approaches are evident in terms of reducing bias and improving the quality of reviews, uptake among authors and reviewers has been modest. Efforts to educate the scientific community about the benefits of transparent and anonymous peer review are essential in driving broader acceptance and implementation of these practices.
In conclusion, the prevalence of bad-mannered reviews in academic publishing poses a significant challenge to the integrity and inclusivity of the scientific community. By promoting a culture of constructive feedback, respect, and professionalism, publishers and researchers can work together to banish unprofessional behavior from the peer-review process. Through continued dialogue, training, and the adoption of transparent and anonymous review practices, the scientific community can create a more supportive and equitable environment for all researchers.