Challenges in the Peer-review process

Udgam Mishra

doi:10.53697/jim.v5i1.2570

Authors

Udgam Mishra Tribhuvan University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-0700

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53697/jim.v5i1.2570

Keywords:

Peer review process, publishing challenges, bias, transparency, AI

Abstract

The peer-review process, considered as the backbone of academic publishing, faces many challenges that undermine its reliability and effectiveness. These issues affect the accuracy of published research and contribute to frustration among authors and reviewers. This study delves into these challenges through qualitative interviews with 10 academic stakeholders, including researchers, reviewers, editors, and the editor-in-chief. The primary focus of the research is to uncover the key issues impacting the peer-review system and to propose practical solutions for addressing them. Using thematic analysis, the study identifies several persistent issues, including the overwhelming workload faced by reviewers, delays in providing feedback, and the influence of personal biases on review outcomes. These factors lead to inconsistent and sometimes unreliable evaluations of research, which can hinder the publication process. Moreover, the lack of standardised review criteria further exacerbates the situation, with different reviewers applying varying standards to the same manuscript. Such inconsistencies compromise the quality and speed of the review process, resulting in significant challenges for both authors and reviewers. The paper proposes several solutions to improve the peer-review system in light of these findings. By addressing these issues, the study contributes to ongoing efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the peer-review system and ensure its continued relevance in the rapidly evolving landscape of academic publishing.

References

Äijö, T., Elgort, D., Becker, M., Herzog, R., Brown, R. K., Odry, B. L., & Vianu, R. (2024). Improving the Reliability of Peer Review Without a Gold Standard. Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine, 37(2), 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-00971-9

Baltar, F., & Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet research, 22(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211199960

Bancroft, S. F., Ryoo, K., & Miles, M. (2022). Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication. Science Education, 106(5), 1232-1248. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21733

Bell, K., Kingori, P., & Mills, D. (2024). Scholarly publishing, boundary processes, and the problem of fake peer reviews. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 49(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221112463

Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B., & Squazzoni, F. (2019). The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature communications, 10(1), 322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2

Buser, J. M., Morris, K. L., Dzomeku, V. M., Endale, T., Smith, Y. R., & August, E. (2023). Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community. BMJ Global Health, 8(4), e012224. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012224

Craig, A., Lee, C., Bala, N., & Taswell, C. (2022). Motivating and maintaining ethics, equity, effectiveness, efficiency, and expertise in peer review. Retrieved from. https://philpapers.org/rec/CRAMAM-4

Dalton, A., Wolff, K., & Bekker, B. (2022). Interdisciplinary research as a complicated system. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221100397. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221100397

Drozdz, J. A., & Ladomery, M. R. (2024). The peer review process: past, present, and future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 12054. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Cheung, C. M., Conboy, K., Duan, Y., Dubey, R., ... & Viglia, G. (2022). How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102426

El-Guebaly, N., Foster, J., Bahji, A., & Hellman, M. (2023). The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 40(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221092862

Giray, L., Sevnarayan, K., & Ranjbaran Madiseh, F. (2025). Beyond Policing: AI Writing Detection Tools, Trust, Academic Integrity, and Their Implications for College Writing. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 29(1), 83-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2024.2437174

Hanafizadeh, P., & Shaikh, A. A. (2021). Developing doctoral students'/researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100500

Hidouri, S., Kamoun, H., Salah, S., Jellad, A., & Saad, H. B. (2024). Key guidelines for responding to reviewers. F1000Research, 13, 921. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154614.1

Horbach, S. S., & Halffman, W. W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research integrity and peer review, 3, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5

Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2024). The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(4), e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12511

Hosseini, M., & Horbach, S. P. (2023). Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Research integrity and peer review, 8(1), 4. //doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5

Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2024). The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(4), e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12511

Jerrim, J., & Vries, R. (2023). Are peer reviews of grant proposals reliable? An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funding applications. The Social Science Journal, 60(1), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1728506

Kadaifci, C., Isikli, E., & Topcu, Y. I. (2025). Fundamental problems in the peer‐review process and stakeholders' perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement. Learned Publishing, 38(1), e1637. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1637

Kadri, S. M., Dorri, N., Osaiweran, M., Garyali, P., & Petkovic, M. (2024). Scientific Peer Review in an Era of Artificial Intelligence. In Scientific Publishing Ecosystem: An Author-Editor-Reviewer Axis (pp. 397-413). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4060-4_23

Kern-Goldberger, A. R., James, R., Berghella, V., & Miller, E. S. (2022). The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 227(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.030

Kulal, A., N, A., Shareena, P., & Dinesh, S. (2025). Unmasking Favoritism and Bias in Academic Publishing: An Empirical Study on Editorial Practices. Public Integrity, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2024.2448875

Kusumoto, F. M., Bittl, J. A., Creager, M. A., Dauerman, H. L., Lala, A., McDermott, M. M., ... & Peer Review Task Force of the Scientific Publications Committee. (2023). Challenges and controversies in peer review: JACC review topic of the week. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 82(21), 2054-2062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056

Lim, W. M., & Bowman, C. (2024). Giving and responding to feedback: Guidelines for authors and reviewers. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 48(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2024.2304948

Lauria, M. (2023). Reviewing peer review: A flawed system: With immense potential. Publishing Research Quarterly, 39(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09943-3

Moher, D., & Vieira Armond, A. C. (2025). Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much. Accountability in Research, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451

Mollaki, V. (2024). Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? The challenges of using AI tools in peer reviewing and the need to go beyond publishing policies. Research Ethics, 20(2), 239-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224552

Mathew, R. P., & Patel, V. (2022). Predatory journals-The power of the predator versus the integrity of the honest. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 51(5), 740-746. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2021.07.005

Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 22, 16094069231205789. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789

Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T. D., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2017). Technology-enhanced peer review: Benefits and implications of providing multiple reviews. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 69-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26196120

Prakash, A., Varghese, J. J., & Aggarwal, S. (2024). Gender of gender studies: examining regional and gender-based disparities in scholarly publications. Scientometrics, 129(7), 4471-4493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05084-2

Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5

Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2018). Conflict of interest in journal peer review. Toxicologic Pathology, 46(2), 112-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318754792

Rodriguez, E., Pahlevan-Lbrekic, C., & Larson, E. L. (2021). Facilitating timely institutional review board review: common issues and recommendations. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(3), 255-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211009680

Salman, H. A., Ahmad, M. A., Ibrahim, R., & Mahmood, J. (2025). Systematic analysis of generative AI tools integration in academic research and peer review. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 15(1), e202502. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/15832

Sax, D. R., Sturmer, L. R., Mark, D. G., Rana, J. S., & Reed, M. E. (2022). Barriers and opportunities regarding implementation of a machine learning-based acute heart failure risk stratification tool in the emergency department. Diagnostics, 12(10), 2463.

Seghier, M. L. (2024). Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process. F1000Research, 13, 439. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148985.3

Severin, A., & Chataway, J. (2021). Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects. Learned publishing, 34(4), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1392

Schmaling, K. B., & Gallo, S. A. (2023). Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Research integrity and peer review, 8(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3

Si, K., Li, Y., Ma, C., & Guo, F. (2023). Affiliation bias in peer review and the gender gap. Research Policy, 52(7), 104797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104797

Smith, J., Nels, A., Emery, L., & Stanley, M. (2023). Exploring the use of photovoice in understanding the lived experience of neurological conditions: a scoping review and reflexive thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231156344. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231156344

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the royal society of medicine, 99(4), 178-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414

Smith, G. D., & Jackson, D. (2022). Integrity and trust in research and publication: The crucial role of peer review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 78(11), e135-e136. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15438

Smith, O. M., Davis, K. L., Pizza, R. B., Waterman, R., Dobson, K. C., Foster, B., ... & Davis, C. L. (2023). Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(4), 512-523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-w

Stahl, B. C., & Eke, D. (2024). The ethics of ChatGPT–Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management, 74, 102700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Excessively long editorial decisions and excessively long publication times by journals: causes, risks, consequences, and proposed solutions. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33, 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9489-9

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tripathi, A., & Thakar, S. V. (2024). Ethical use of AI for academic integrity: Preventing plagiarism and cheating. Ethical Frameworks in Special Education: A Guide for Researchers, 91. https://books.google.com.np/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xSAaEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA91&dq=Tripathi,+A.,+%26+Thakar,+S.+V.+(2024).+Ethical+use+of+AI+for+academic+integrity:+Preventing+plagiarism+and+cheating.+Ethical+Frameworks+in+Special+Education:+A+Guide+for+Researchers,+91.&ots=rNZJoo_xix&sig=tJGIRV_LB5EcNWir4HtVVtX1oIA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Waltman, L., Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., & Woods, H. B. (2023). How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 334-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544

Weaver, M. L., Sundland, R., Adams, A. M., Faria, I., Feldman, H. A., Gudmundsdottir, H., ... & Hicks, C. W. (2022, December). The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. In Seminars in vascular surgery (Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 470-478). WB Saunders. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002

Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PloS one, 11(1), e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913