Objectivity of the peer‐review process: Enduring myth, reality, and possible remedies

Abstract

Key points The ‘replication crisis’ in science raises serious questions about the objectivity and reliability of the peer‐review process. Much of the literature, contributed on the topic in the past by former editors, has focused on the role of reviewers, and their possible biases. However, experience in practice shows that editors also contribute significantly, at different levels, to the lack of objectivity of peer‐review. Various techniques, including network analysis and machine learning, can be implemented to remedy the situation and restore the gatekeeping role of peer review.

Quality, Access, and Voice in African Studies Publishing: Smoothing the Path to Bigger Changes

“…Allen et al, 2019). While reviews are often criticised for being too subjective a means of checking academic standards (Baveye, 2021), it is the hard work authors put in to reworking their manuscripts, I believe, that leads to high-quality output. Africa Spectrum's improved quality thus might be (coincidentally?)…”

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

“…The academic publication process is built on objectivity [ 1 ], gender and socio-cultural neutrality [ 2 ], and respect for human and animal rights. Hence, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are essential in publication processes, among other academic spaces.…”

Finding our voice—Scholarship in peer review

“…While there is much debate over its objectivity, reliability and effectiveness, 1,2 peer review is a prevalent and integral part of scholarly publishing. Peer reviewers play essential roles in this process as independent assessors who evaluate and comment on manuscripts prior to publication in order to maintain academic standards of published articles.…”