Academic Peer Review Today

In theory: Academics write an article summarising their research findings and submit it to one or more academic journals. Upon receipt of the article, journal editors evaluate the importance of the paper and, if important, then ask one or more academics to review and provide feedback on the paper (called referees) to ensure the paper’s correctness, soundness, and relevancy. Referee comments are sent back to the paper authors in a timely manner, who make any necessary adjustments and resubmit the paper. Once journal editors are satisfied that the paper is sufficiently rigorous, they will publish it in their paywalled journal (without referee comments). In all other cases, the paper is rejected.

In practice: Academics experience long wait times for review, with many delays and uncertainties. These may be caused by many factors. For example, editors may have difficulty finding appropriate referees, who may decline or procrastinate before accepting the review. When referees agree to review the paper, they often don't thoroughly examine the data or analysis, focusing more on the paper's aesthetics and whether it is interesting. This leads to many papers being rejected for their perceived lack of interest or importance, rather than their accuracy or validity. Importantly, research suggests that novel, risky, or interdisciplinary papers are often more likely to be rejected. This is crucial because research should prioritise the dissemination of potentially groundbreaking papers, even if it means tolerating some lower-quality publications. It should not focus excessively on censoring papers deemed poor or unimportant, as is the case with the current academic peer-review system.

In addition, referees can often be guilty of failing to check equations or proofs in theoretical work, trusting the author based on reputation or institution. When the authors receive feedback, they generally just submit a paper to a new journal rather than take the time to correct the original. The author's identity or reputation influences decisions throughout the process, sustaining inequalities based on status. Finally, journals rarely publish reviewer comments, making it difficult for others to assess the paper's credibility.