Industry Discussions on Peer Review Processes

Interesting topics

Industry Discussions on Peer Review Processes

Table of Content

August 2025 | Source: Taylor & Francis Author Services

The peer review process is a foundational aspect of academic research, formalising the crucial step of evaluation before publication. This process acts as a quality control measure which helps to prevent mistakes, biases and fraudulent research. The impact, limitations and evolution of the peer review process have long been debated through the academic and publishing industry. Throughout this article, we will expand on the drawing on these debates with a focus on the timely topic of the academic and publishing industry challenges of peer review, the importance of peer review to publishing research, and the emerging trends. [1]

The Role of Peer Review in Academic Publishing

Peer review is an essential component in establishing the quality and reliability of research as it is presented to the wider academic community. Usually, peer review occurs when two or, more likely, three experts in the field critically consider the research, looking for methodological propriety, clarity of analysis, and relevance of research. In setting the standard of the scientific rigor for a study undergoing peer review, peer review acts to underpin the academic journal’s credibility and determines the extent to which researchers can advance knowledge based on one another’s work.[2]

There are several types of peer review, including:

Single-blind review: The identities of reviewers are kept secret, but the authors know who is reviewing their work. [3]
Double-blind review: Both the authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. [4]
Open peer review: Both are revealed. [5]

Challenges in the Peer Review Process

Perhaps the greatest critique of peer review is the potential for bias. Reviewers and editors are human, and they can transmit unconscious biases into the process, such as favouritism toward a well-known researcher, gender bias, or biases toward certain regions of the world. Bias can affect the outcome of a review, sometimes stalling the progress of new or unconventional research.

A second issue with peer review is that each review is not uniformly valuable. For example, some reviewers may give a cursory or superficial review, while others may produce an in-depth qualitative review. Such variability could lead to inconsistencies in the publication process – for example, some excellent papers may be wrongly rejected while some papers with flaws may be accepted in reputable journals. [6]

The Rise of Open Peer Review

Nonetheless, open peer review has its detractors. Some people oppose the fact that if peer reviewers know their report will be publicly available, they may hesitate to be critical. Some researchers even wonder about the potential for retaliation, or possible conflicts of interests.

Nonetheless, transparency in research publishing continues to grow. There are an increasing number of journals using open peer review and more funders are encouraging or requiring transparency in the review process. It appears all part of a larger move towards facilitating transparency and reproducibility in research.

Automated and AI-Assisted Peer Review

AI and machine learning technologies are being developed to assist in any number of areas related to the editorial and peer review processes, including plagiarism detection, structure assessment, etc. For instance, there are tools that can give an initial assessment of a paper’s quality and can also flag problems before the human reviewers assess the paper.

The capabilities AI will provide should help streamline the editorial process and should minimize biases, but the potential for AI to adequately replace human judgment is being questioned. After all, much of what we assess in academic publishing (or any publishing, really) involves evaluation, interpretation, and nuanced understanding, (especially in specialized domains). This is something the current generation of AI cannot duplicate.[7]

The Need for Reform

With these hurdles facing the academic industry, there is a burgeoning consensus that reforms to the peer review process need to take place.

Increasing the number of reviewers	Helping more experts find the time to devote to the process of peer reviewing might make it easier for an individual reviewer and help enhance the quality of the reviews.
Standardizing the review process	It may reduce inconsistencies and biases in the review process if clearer guidelines about what reviewers are expected to do were issued.
Incentivizing reviewers	Many researchers volunteer their time in the peer review process, leaving them little or no reward for that task. Provision of incentives in the form of credit toward promotion or access (temporarily) to the end publication, could make peer reviewing seem less of encumbrance to reviewers and much more meaningful.

Conclusion

Peer review will continue to be a significant component of academic publishing process, but it does have its issues. There are ongoing conversations about bias, transparency, and how automation shapes how the process proceeds. If the demands on academic publishing exist or even grow, so too will the demands for creative means of peer review that will enhance the speed and fairness of the peer review process.

Struggling with the peer review process for your academic research? Pubrica offers expert support in manuscript preparation, journal submission, and peer review optimization. Let us help you navigate the complexities of the academic publishing process with precision and professionalism

References

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
Gonzalez, P., Wilson, G., & Purvis, A. (2022). Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.5.1
Seeber, M., & Bacchelli, A. (2017). Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?. Scientometrics, 113(1), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7
Sameh Eltaybani, Is double-blind peer review detrimental to scientific integrity?, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Volume 44, Issue 6, June 2025, Pages 1449–1450, https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgaf078
Henriquez T. (2023). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. mBio, 14(5), e0194823. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23
(N.d.). Pubmedia.Id. Retrieved September 5, 2025, from https://penerbitadm.pubmedia.id/index.php/JIM/article/view/2570
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing: Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 37(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1570