Editing Peer review (section)

== Critiques of peer review ==
{{See also|Scholarly peer review#Criticism}}
Academic peer review has faced considerable criticism, with many studies highlighting inherent issues in the peer review process.

A particular concern in peer review is "role duality" as people are in parallel in the role of being an evaluator and being evaluated.<ref name=hk>{{Cite journal |last=Klapper |first=Helge |last2=Piezunka |first2=Henning |last3=Dahlander |first3=Linus |date=July 2024 |title=Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2021.15302 |journal=Organization Science |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=1363–1387 |doi=10.1287/orsc.2021.15302 |issn=1047-7039}}</ref> Research illustrates that taken on both roles in parallel biases people in their role as evaluators as they engage in strategic actions to increase the chance of being evaluated positively themselves.<ref name=hk/>

The editorial peer review process has been found to be strongly biased against 'negative studies,' i.e. studies that do not work. This then biases the information base of medicine. Journals become biased against negative studies when values come into play. "Who wants to read something that doesn't work?" asks Richard Smith in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. "That's boring."

This is also particularly evident in university classrooms, where the most common source of writing feedback during student years often comes from teachers, whose comments are often highly valued. Students may become influenced to provide research in line with the professor's viewpoints, because of the teacher's position of high authority. The effectiveness of feedback largely stems from its high authority. Benjamin Keating, in his article "A Good Development Thing: A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing," conducted a longitudinal study comparing two groups of students (one majoring in writing and one not) to explore students' perceptions of authority. This research, involving extensive analysis of student texts, concludes that students majoring in non-writing fields tend to undervalue mandatory peer review in class, while those majoring in writing value classmates' comments more. This reflects that peer review feedback has a certain threshold, and effective peer review requires a certain level of expertise. For non-professional writers, peer review feedback may be overlooked, thereby affecting its effectiveness.<ref>{{Citation |last=Keating |first=Benjamin |title='A Good Development Thing': A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing |date=2019 |work=Developing Writers in Higher Education |pages=56–80 |editor-last=Gere |editor-first=Anne Ruggles |jstor=j.ctvdjrpt3.7 |series=A Longitudinal Study |publisher=University of Michigan Press |isbn=978-0-472-13124-2}}</ref>

Elizabeth Ellis Miller, Cameron Mozafari, Justin Lohr and Jessica Enoch state, "While peer review is an integral part of writing classrooms, students often struggle to effectively engage in it." The authors illustrate some reasons for the inefficiency of peer review based on research conducted during peer review sessions in university classrooms:

# Lack of Training: Students and even some faculty members may not have received sufficient training to provide constructive feedback. Without proper guidance on what to look for and how to provide helpful comments, peer reviewers may find it challenging to offer meaningful insights.
# Limited Engagement: Students may participate in peer review sessions with minimal enthusiasm or involvement, viewing them as obligatory tasks rather than valuable learning opportunities. This lack of investment can result in superficial feedback that fails to address underlying issues in the writing.
# Time Constraints: Instructors often allocate limited time for peer review activities during class sessions, which may not be adequate for thorough reviews of peers' work. Consequently, feedback may be rushed or superficial, lacking the depth required for meaningful improvement.

This research demonstrates that besides issues related to expertise, numerous objective factors contribute to students' poor performance in peer review sessions, resulting in feedback from peer reviewers that may not effectively assist authors. Additionally, this study highlights the influence of emotions in peer review sessions, suggesting that both peer reviewers and authors cannot completely eliminate emotions when providing and receiving feedback. This can lead to peer reviewers and authors approaching the feedback with either positive or negative attitudes towards the text, resulting in selective or biased feedback and review, further impacting their ability to objectively evaluate the article. It implies that subjective emotions may also affect the effectiveness of peer review feedback.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Elizabeth Ellis |last2=Mozafari |first2=Cameron |last3=Lohr |first3=Justin |last4=Enoch |first4=Jessica |title=Thinking about Feeling: The Roles of Emotion in Reflective Writing |journal=College Composition and Communication |date=February 2023 |volume=74 |issue=3 |pages=485–521 |id={{ProQuest|2802085546}} |doi=10.58680/ccc202332364 }}</ref>

Pamela Bedore and Brian O'Sullivan also hold a skeptical view of peer review in most writing contexts. The authors conclude, based on comparing different forms of peer review after systematic training at two universities, that "the crux is that peer review is not just about improving writing but about helping authors achieve their writing vision." Feedback from the majority of non-professional writers during peer review sessions often tends to be superficial, such as simple grammar corrections and questions. This precisely reflects the implication in the conclusion that the focus is only on improving writing skills. Meaningful peer review involves understanding the author's writing intent, posing valuable questions and perspectives, and guiding the author to achieve their writing goals.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/v35/35.9-10.pdf|title=Writing centers go to class: Peer review (of our) workshops}}</ref>