{"title":"Peer reviewer fatigue, or peer reviewer refusal?","authors":"Kate Beecher, Joshua Wang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2463977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peer review processes are slowing. Existing literature and policies conceptualize this stagnation in peer review as a result of academic fatigue. Here, we instead examine an under-researched factor behind slowed peer review systems: academics refusing to voluntarily review manuscripts for for-profit journals. By synthesizing accounts of peer review refusal from scholarly blogs, journal editorials, and prominent social media movements, we provide an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of this refusal. We then offer some preliminary suggestions for academics to simultaneously safeguard the speed of peer review and voice dissatisfaction with major publishing companies. This piece contributes to the evolving field of peer review studies and provides an alternate conceptualization of the slowing peer review system.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2463977","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Peer review processes are slowing. Existing literature and policies conceptualize this stagnation in peer review as a result of academic fatigue. Here, we instead examine an under-researched factor behind slowed peer review systems: academics refusing to voluntarily review manuscripts for for-profit journals. By synthesizing accounts of peer review refusal from scholarly blogs, journal editorials, and prominent social media movements, we provide an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of this refusal. We then offer some preliminary suggestions for academics to simultaneously safeguard the speed of peer review and voice dissatisfaction with major publishing companies. This piece contributes to the evolving field of peer review studies and provides an alternate conceptualization of the slowing peer review system.
期刊介绍：
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
