Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer reviewers who typically volunteer the time and knowledge but also to the authors, who reasonably should expect non-conflicted, thoughtful, unbiased, thorough reviews of the work in question and to not be subjected to hostile or personal attacks.
Examples of possible problematic reviews or circumstances for which some editors might consider whether to edit or quash the review:
- "This author group clearly is lacking any fundamental knowledge of the topic."
- The reviewer recommends inclusion of their own work in the reference list without clear reasons.
- The editor encouraged the submission of the work and is eager to publish it, but one review is very negative.
- The review is replete with typographic errors.
- The review is a single line "This paper should be revised" or "This paper should be rejected".
- The reviewer accuses the authors of plagiarism or other misconduct within the body of the review.
- The reviewer's comments are very different from those of the other reviewers and it seems that the reviewer did not understand the paper.
Questions for the Forum:
- Is it ever acceptable for an editor to change the content of a peer review or to quash it altogether?
- If so, under what circumstances would this be acceptable?
- If not, why not?
We welcome comments on this discussion from both members and non-members. Please add your comments below.
This was discussed at the start of our COPE Forum on 6 March 2020
Please do leave any comments below, whether or not you are planning on joining the meeting.
Comments are reviewed and, on approval, added below.