Reviews, Reviewers, and Reviewing: The “Tragedy of the Commons” in the Scientific Publication Process

Everybody wants to get a good review but not everybody is willing to give a good review. In my experience, this fact has resulted in a modern-day instance of “the tragedy of the commons” in which everyone seeks a precious common resource (in this case, the scholarship of peer review in scientific publication) but everyone less widely provides it. Editors face an emerging review culture in which many qualified colleagues often seem too busy, too disinterested, or simply too inaccessible to engage with for peer review purposes, and which leads to issues that are, indeed, tragic in the practice of science

Rejoined and Regenerated: Response to Responses to “Reviews, Reviewers, and Reviewing: The ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ in the Scientific Publication Process”

The joy of writing critiques about the editorial process is doubly enhanced when engaged in debates such as this one wherein I find the most fascinating views, points, and counterpoints in correspondence to my own. I am simply pleased to say that the sterling colleagues who have chosen to respond to and rejoin my initial essays are highly skilled and insightful editors in their own right, and we all benefit from the colloquy that ensues in such discussions about how to improve peer reviews in our field of science

The Other Reviewer: RoboReviewer

The peer review process is a mainstay for informing publication decisions at many journals and conferences. It has several strengths that are well-accepted, such as providing a signal about the quality of published papers. Nonetheless, it has several limitations that have been documented extensively, such as reviewer biases affecting paper appraisals. To date, attempts to mitigate these limitations have had limited success. Accordingly, I consider how developments in artificial intelligence technologies—in particular, pretrained large language models with downstream fine-tuning—might be used to automate peer reviews. I discuss several challenges that are likely to arise if these systems are built and deployed and some ways to address these challenges. If the systems are deemed successful, I describe some characteristics of a highly competitive, lucrative marketplace for these systems that is likely to emerge. I discuss some ramifications of such a marketplace for authors, reviewers, editors, conference chairs, conference program committees, publishers, and the peer review process

Peer Reviewer Non-performance: The Need to Replenish the “Commons”

Journal editors have observed a greater occurrence of reviewers agreeing to peer review but never completing reviews. It seems that the information systems (IS) field increasingly needs more reviewers. In this paper, I consider the reasons why researchers agree to peer review and the professional and ethical conduct of reviewers who agree to review but never do so. Finally, I make suggestions to motivate reviewers to replenish the “commons”

Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment

Bullying and misconduct in the realm of scientific and scholarly publishing have the potential to jeopardize the transparency and integrity of academic discourse. While misconduct issues among authors have been extensively discussed, the role of editors in perpetuating or mitigating such problems has garnered less attention. Scientific publishing serves as the gateway for disseminating innovative research findings globally, and the role of editors, especially Editor/s-in-chief, is pivotal in safeguarding the rigor and credibility of published research. Editor bullying and misconduct involve behaviors that undermine the scientific process, compromise research integrity, and harm the careers and wellbeing of individuals. These actions may manifest as biased decision-making, suppression of dissenting voices, or the exploitation of power dynamics in the peer review process. To address these issues, preventive and therapeutic approaches are suggested, including enhancing awareness, recognizing and mitigating exacerbating factors, and upholding professionalism. Moreover, the importance of a conflict-of-interest declaration for editors is highlighted to ensure transparency and integrity in the editorial process. The present mini-review aims to shed light on editor bullying, illuminating its gravity and the urgency to address these issues within the academic publishing domain/s. This review underscores the more subtle, yet equally significant, issue of professional misconduct in the editorial realm of scientific journals

Debate Section Editorial Note: Reviews, Reviewers, and Reviewing: The “Tragedy of the Commons” in the Scientific Publication Process

In this editorial note, Karlheinz Kautz introduces a debate on the wider concerns about reviews, reviewers, and reviewing

Debate section editorial note: Reviews, reviewers, and reviewing: The "tragedy of the commons" in the scientific publication process

In this editorial note, Karlheinz Kautz introduces a debate on the wider concerns about reviews, reviewers, and reviewing