Quality standards and training are important in the peer review process, but what about engagement?

Abstract

Many argue that the peer review is broken—but it should not be. The focal article by Köhler et al. (2020) comes at a time when many researchers and some editors are claiming the peer review process is broken with observations of the impact of human frailties (Rennie, 2016), that the peer review system is unsustainable (Kovanis, Porcher, Ravaud, & Trinquart, 2016), and that the system exploits academics (Fox & Petchy, 2010). While the focal article moves to address the human frailties issue, the second issue relates to the academic pool willing to complete peer reviews, and this is a problem that needs to be also resolved for the quality of reviews to have any effect. Indeed, if we are able to broaden the reviewing pool, this may make establishing quality standards even more important. The final issue, which relates to the exploitation of academic labor by publishing houses, while associated with the reduced reviewing pool, could be considered an economic or structural problem. In this response, I seek to address the problems that emerge from fewer academics engaging in the peer review process. I also offer solutions for what we can do about it and explain how this can be linked to the professionalism competency within the quality framework for peer review offered by Köhler et al.