Flood of Submissions Bogs Down Peer Review

null Nov. 20, 2023 2:35 pm ET Photo: The Yomiuri Shimbun/Associated Press“What’s Wrong with Peer Review?” (Review, Nov. 11) makes the point that journals have a hard time checking the validity of data and methods because they can be overwhelmed with submissions. Another phenomenon that few know about is the “desk reject,” whereby journal editors or their staff reject a paper without sending it to peer review. In some fields, desk rejection accounts for the majority of papers refused publication in top-ranked journals. This is also a phenomenon that has arisen due to the overwhelming number of submissions, which is the result of the need of researchers to advance their careers by publishing journal articles.It is perhaps more damaging to science than the flawed peer-review process because it means that the review process can’t meet the gold standard of being double-blind or anonymous to a reviewer. It risks having editors or staff pick papers to send to referees based on their personal

A person who loves writing, loves novels, and loves life.Seeking objective truth, hoping for world peace, and wishing for a world without wars.
Flood of Submissions Bogs Down Peer Review
null

Nov. 20, 2023 2:35 pm ET

image
Photo: The Yomiuri Shimbun/Associated Press

What’s Wrong with Peer Review?” (Review, Nov. 11) makes the point that journals have a hard time checking the validity of data and methods because they can be overwhelmed with submissions. Another phenomenon that few know about is the “desk reject,” whereby journal editors or their staff reject a paper without sending it to peer review. In some fields, desk rejection accounts for the majority of papers refused publication in top-ranked journals. This is also a phenomenon that has arisen due to the overwhelming number of submissions, which is the result of the need of researchers to advance their careers by publishing journal articles.

It is perhaps more damaging to science than the flawed peer-review process because it means that the review process can’t meet the gold standard of being double-blind or anonymous to a reviewer. It risks having editors or staff pick papers to send to referees based on their personal knowledge and assessment of authors, their credentials, and the subject matter. This can result in a bias toward the status quo.

Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Continue reading your article with
a WSJ subscription

Subscribe Now

Already a subscriber? Sign In

What's Your Reaction?

like

dislike

love

funny

angry

sad

wow