Background Despite critiques from across academia, double-anonymised peer review is still considered the ‘gold standard’ quality-assurance tool for the publication of academic research. While some journals make use of ‘open’ peer-review practices to make elements of academic publishing more transparent, anonymised is still used by the majority of academic journals, with anonymity considered the best guarantor of reviewer objectivity. Anonymised peer review remains a ‘black box’ which conceals diverse and idiosyncratic practices by reviewers, editors and journals. This paper seeks to uncover the impact of such practices on the peer review of interdisciplinary research. Methods The author first conducted a survey of 164 self-identified interdisciplinary researchers from a range of disciplines at one research-intensive UK university to identify barriers to and enablers of high-quality peer review for interdisciplinary papers. This quantitative/qualitative survey was supplemented by interviews with authors, editors and reviewers from across biological and medical sciences, physical sciences and engineering and social sciences and humanities. Results Authors of interdisciplinary research papers reported experiencing disadvantage in peer review practices, including perceived bias against interdisciplinary research by mono-disciplinary reviewers and the assignment of unsuitable reviewers. Reviewers reported being assigned papers to review that were not within their field of expertise, and insufficient editorial guidance on review processes for interdisciplinary papers. Editors reported that the ‘reviewer crisis’ has further complicated the already challenging process of seeking peer review for interdisciplinary research. In interviews, reviewers shared strategies to overcome weaknesses in the review process for interdisciplinary papers. These included confidence reporting where the reviewer did not feel able to comment on all aspects of the paper, and seeking advice from colleagues to enhance their review. Practices were employed with varying degrees of formality, and in some cases undermined the stated goals of anonymised peer review. Conclusions Considering the possible implications of the informal strategies employed by peer reviewers, the paper proposes a framework for interdisciplinary peer review informed by existing open peer review practices that formalises and incorporates existing strategies used by reviewers and editors to enhance the peer review of interdisciplinary research papers.

Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年6月16日

查看全文

Georgia Vesma

摘要

Background

Despite critiques from across academia, double-anonymised peer review is still considered the ‘gold standard’ quality-assurance tool for the publication of academic research. While some journals make use of ‘open’ peer-review practices to make elements of academic publishing more transparent, anonymised is still used by the majority of academic journals, with anonymity considered the best guarantor of reviewer objectivity. Anonymised peer review remains a ‘black box’ which conceals diverse and idiosyncratic practices by reviewers, editors and journals. This paper seeks to uncover the impact of such practices on the peer review of interdisciplinary research.

Methods

The author first conducted a survey of 164 self-identified interdisciplinary researchers from a range of disciplines at one research-intensive UK university to identify barriers to and enablers of high-quality peer review for interdisciplinary papers. This quantitative/qualitative survey was supplemented by interviews with authors, editors and reviewers from across biological and medical sciences, physical sciences and engineering and social sciences and humanities.

Results

Authors of interdisciplinary research papers reported experiencing disadvantage in peer review practices, including perceived bias against interdisciplinary research by mono-disciplinary reviewers and the assignment of unsuitable reviewers. Reviewers reported being assigned papers to review that were not within their field of expertise, and insufficient editorial guidance on review processes for interdisciplinary papers. Editors reported that the ‘reviewer crisis’ has further complicated the already challenging process of seeking peer review for interdisciplinary research.

In interviews, reviewers shared strategies to overcome weaknesses in the review process for interdisciplinary papers. These included confidence reporting where the reviewer did not feel able to comment on all aspects of the paper, and seeking advice from colleagues to enhance their review. Practices were employed with varying degrees of formality, and in some cases undermined the stated goals of anonymised peer review.

Conclusions

Considering the possible implications of the informal strategies employed by peer reviewers, the paper proposes a framework for interdisciplinary peer review informed by existing open peer review practices that formalises and incorporates existing strategies used by reviewers and editors to enhance the peer review of interdisciplinary research papers.