Analysis and news


Rogue peer review – a polysemy in the making Lou Peck discovers that a challenging issue is also increasingly complex – but there is also plenty to be celebrated


It’s undeniable the huge investment that peer reviewers give to their community, and how this effort is not only enormously valuable but helps us accelerate research. The rise in popularity of tools like Publons reveal the enormous effort of individuals in the community. I’ve been reading some recent author comments and it led me to explore the issue of ‘rogue peer reviewers’. What does that phrase even mean? Well, that’s a question. When I first started writing this piece, I thought I’d build on what I’d recently discovered and do some research to validate my thinking. A quick survey and a couple of interviews, I told myself, would do the trick – ‘bish bash bosh’. Well, let’s just say that the insights I collected led to more definitions making the polysemy ‘rogue peer reviewers’ even more complex than I originally thought. I’ll start with the common explanations


I knew: • Someone who pretends to be a peer reviewer they are not;


• Someone who purposely slows down the process or outright rejects a paper, to roadblock a publication so their work on a similar topic is published first; or


• Someone who won’t review unless they can publish the article publicly online, e.g. in their blog.


At recent events, I wanted to hear from publishing representatives; the common recognised response was someone who pretends to be a peer reviewer when they are not. The general consensus was that they had not heard of someone purposely holding back reviewing work for their own gain, which is what I had started to hear from authors. This begs me to ask the question: is this on the increase and do we need to be mindful of it – or, after speaking to some editors who have heard of/experienced this, maybe it’s just not widespread enough yet? I took to Twitter with a survey to find out what I could discover, and wondered if I was about to open a can of worms. In addition to those I already suggested, I found even more definitions:


40 Research Information April/May 2019


X X


• Someone who purposefully uses the peer review system to benefit themselves – taking manuscripts and presenting them as their own, not disclosing conflicts, etc;


• Someone who intentionally sabotages the work being reviewed;


• Someone who recommends a paper to be rejected unless it references the reviewer’s work; or


• Someone who writes negative reviews with no constructive content.


Now this research does not in any way discredit the phenomenal work that many peer reviewers do, but more address the recurring issues that are leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those involved – peer reviewers, authors, editors, or publishing staff. It’s amazing how one phrase can have


different meanings to so many people. It’s worrying though, when you read the examples I was given; how do we address these and where do these challenges sit in the grand scheme of things? It’s a shame that the actions of a few can spoil it for the many, but I guess the question on my


“It’s a shame that the actions of a few can spoil it for the many”


lips here is, are the numbers of rogue peer reviewers on the increase? If so, what is contributing to this growth and how can we reduce or eradicate this behaviour? Peer reviewing is a hugely rewarding


contribution to the community but sometimes feels like a thankless task, with many asking for more recognition from commercial publishers whether it be rewards like APC’s waived for their next papers, monetary payment etc, or promotion and recognition from their employers. Some researchers are required to take on peer reviewing duties as part of their role and/or to help advance their career. That doesn’t mean it should be a difficult process. I know from my own explorations that publishers are supporting authors and peer reviewers to address these issues that are having


@researchinfo | www.researchinformation.info


Igor Kisselev/Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52