Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
News

Incompetence Tops List of Complaints About Peer Reviewers

By Jeffrey Brainard August 27, 2008

Incompetence by their reviewers was the most common problem reported by scientists who submitted manuscripts to scholarly journals. Almost two-thirds voiced that beef in a survey administered to scientists employed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Incompetence by their reviewers was the most common problem reported by scientists who submitted manuscripts to scholarly journals. Almost two-thirds voiced that beef in a survey administered to scientists employed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The supposedly expert reviewers, scientists complained, had not carefully read articles, were unfamiliar with the subject matter, or made mistakes of fact or reasoning. The survey results, the first of their kind, were reported in the September issue of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics.

Only a small percentage of scientists reported experiencing two of the most serious violations of peer-review ethics, breach of confidentiality (7 percent) or theft of ideas (5 percent). That finding appears at odds with anecdotal reports that those two problems are pervasive and that the peer-review system is a corrupt, old-boys’ network.

Perception Gap

Journal editors have been working for years to improve the quality of peer reviews and police misconduct among reviewers, but the new study indicates they have not completely succeeded, said Nicholas H. Steneck, who directs a research-ethics program at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

“There seems to be a gap between what the editors are trying to do to improve and what the authors are perceiving,” he said.

Respondents reported other kinds of unethical conduct, too. Nearly 18 percent said that reviewers’ comments had included personal attacks. Approximately 10 percent said reviewers had delayed publication of the paper so they could publish a paper on the same topic first.

The survey was sent to more than 500 scientists at the environmental-health institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, and just over half responded.

The findings were described in the journal by bioethicist David B. Resnik and two coworkers. They called their study “exploratory” because of its limitations: Their sample was not random, and they did ask how often the problems had occurred over the scientists’ careers.

Still, they contend the results are probably representative of the experiences of scientists outside of the environmental-health institute. And the findings, the coauthors wrote, suggested cause for worry about the health of peer review.

“A researcher who is concerned that his/her ideas will be stolen, for example, may not disclose all the information that is needed to repeat his/her experiments,” they wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

To lessen perceptions of incompetence, they said, journals should increase their efforts to train reviewers. And to deal with bias, the journals could do more to select impartial ones.

The paper’s findings should be taken with a grain of salt, but those recommendations are important, said Brian C. Martinson, a senior research investigator at HealthPartners Research Foundation, a nonprofit center in Minneapolis, who has studied scientific misconduct.

“Anyone who’s ever received a negative review” of a journal manuscript is likely to call the reviewers incompetent—"that’s just human nature,” he said.

But the paper’s estimate about the prevalence of egregious behavior may be low, Mr. Martinson added. About half of a random sample of scientists he surveyed in 2002 reported knowing of a colleague who had stolen ideas within the past three years (The Chronicle, June 9, 2005).

It’s difficult to know how many of such reports are accurate, Mr. Martinson said. Nevertheless, perceptions of unfairness by peer reviewers are dangerous, and should be dealt with, because they provide an excuse for others tempted to engage in the same kind of unethical behaviors. “They might say, If it’s not fair, why should I play fair?” he said.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Scholarship & Research
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Jeffrey Brainard
Jeffrey Brainard managed The Chronicle of Higher Education’s data and statistics unit beginning in 2008. He was responsible for the collection and analysis of data and graphics for The Chronicle’s recurring and one-time news projects, including its annual survey of compensation for college chief executives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

PPP 10 FINAL promo.jpg
Bouncing Back?
For Once, Public Confidence in Higher Ed Has Increased
University of California, Berkeley chancellor Dr. Rich Lyons, testifies at a Congressional hearing on antisemitism, in Washington, D.C., U.S., on July 15, 2025. It is the latest in a series of House hearings on antisemitism at the university level, one that critics claim is a convenient way for Republicans to punish universities they consider too liberal or progressive, thereby undermining responses to hate speech and hate crimes. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP)
Another Congressional Hearing
3 College Presidents Went to Congress. Here’s What They Talked About.
Tufts University student from Turkey, Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested by immigration agents while walking along a street in a Boston suburb, talks to reporters on arriving back in Boston, Saturday, May 10, 2025, a day after she was released from a Louisiana immigration detention center on the orders of a federal judge. (AP Photo/Rodrique Ngowi)
Law & Policy
Homeland Security Agents Detail Run-Up to High-Profile Arrests of Pro-Palestinian Scholars
Photo illustration of a donation jar turned on it's side, with coins spilling out.
Financial aid
The End of Unlimited Grad-School Loans Could Leave Some Colleges and Students in the Lurch

From The Review

Illustration of an ocean tide shaped like Donald Trump about to wash away sandcastles shaped like a college campus.
The Review | Essay
Why Universities Are So Powerless in Their Fight Against Trump
By Jason Owen-Smith
Photo-based illustration of a closeup of a pencil meshed with a circuit bosrd
The Review | Essay
How Are Students Really Using AI?
By Derek O'Connell
John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin