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
  • Virtual Events
  • 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
  • Virtual Events
  • 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:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
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

Illustration of a magnifying glass highlighting the phrase "including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
Policy 'Whiplash'
Research Grants Increasingly Require Compliance With Trump’s Orders. Here’s How Colleges Are Responding.
Photo illustration showing internal email text snippets over a photo of a University of Iowa campus quad
Red-state reticence
Facing Research Cuts, Officials at U. of Iowa Spoke of a ‘Limited Ability to Publicly Fight This’
Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues

From The Review

Football game between UCLA and Colorado University, at Folsom Field in Boulder, Colo., Sept. 24, 2022.
The Review | Opinion
My University Values Football More Than Education
By Sigman Byrd
Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual 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