Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process

Abstract

Based on our editorial experience, and acknowledging the regular editor grievances about reviewer disengagement at professional meeting and conferences, in this article we argue that the review system is in need of significant repair. We argue that this has emerged because an audit culture in academia and individual incentives (like reduced teaching loads or publication bonuses) have eroded the willingness of individuals to engage in the collective enterprise of peer-reviewing each others’ work on a quid pro quo basis. In response to this, we emphasise why it is unethical for potential reviewers to disengage from the review process, and outline the implications for our profession if colleagues publish more than they review. Designed as a political intervention in response to reviewer disengagement, we aim to ‘politicise’ the review process and its consequences for the sustainability of the scholarly community. We propose three pathways towards greater reviewer engagement: (i) senior scholars setting the right kind of ‘reviewer’ example; (ii) journals introducing recognition awards to foster a healthy reviewer progression path and (iii) universities and accreditation bodies moving to explicitly recognise reviewing in workload models and evaluations. While all three proposals have merit, the latter point is especially powerful in fostering reviewer engagement as it aligns individual and institutional goals in ‘measurable’ ways. In this way, ironically, the audit culture can be subverted to address the imbalance between individual and collective goals.

Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

“…With Lindebaum and Jordan (2023) highlighted ethical concerns about the sustainability of the peer review system, especially concerning individuals prioritising publishing over reviewing, fostering a culture of acknowledgement and gratitude for those engaged in peer reviewing becomes essential. Here, I propose a provocative suggestion: authors submitting a manuscript to a journal should commit to reviewing two manuscripts in return.…”

Demystifying Essays as an “A-Typical” Publication Format

“…Rachel Carson’s work is only one point in case. However, more recent essays (see Lindebaum & Jordan, 2021) also attract public debate in the form of higher-than-average “Altmetric scores” and through appearance in Times Higher Education 4 shortly after online-first publication. Furthermore, some essays find their ways into practitioner/news outlets even before in-print publication (Lindebaum et al, 2020).…”

The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production: Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics

“…These developments have helped to solidify the reputation of a specific kind of peer review as necessary for data or theory to be trusted. Ironically this has happened just as a number of colleagues in management and organisation studies have suggested that double-blind peer review is founded on unrecognised and unrewarded intellectual work [and is therefore a form of exploitation of those willing to contribute anonymously to the development of others’ work, as Lund Dean and Forray ( 2018 ) argue], is hopelessly ethically problematic because it lacks transparency [and therefore reproduces specific forms of unequal power relations, as Hugh Willmott ( 2021 ) suggests 2 ], and likely to create ethically troubling inequalities (Lindebaum & Jordan, 2021 ).…”