Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

It cannot be nullified that the peer review process is characterized by reviewers who tend to destructively assume the role of researchers. In so doing, this behavior undermines the intellectual ability of researchers, especially novice researchers, who dedicate their time attempting to contribute to scholarly epistemology. Effectively, this concerning behavior of assuming the role of a researcher may denote that the reviewers downplay the reality that researchers certainly know something; no matter how little or greater it is. Thus, it cannot be fair-minded for reviewers to regard themselves as if they are gods of knowledge. With this in mind, this particular paper aims to explore and open a dialogue concerning the challenge of reviewers who destructively assume the role of an author or researcher, thereupon sabotaging the peer review process by imposing their personal scholarly interests. This is against the reality that such conduct may deter potential epistemologies that may potentially make a constructive social impact within and outside the arena of scholarship. In parallel, such behavior from the reviewers may lead to the rejection of scholarly contributions that can generate change in the academic community. By the same token, the rejection of papers, in large part, by the recommendations of destructive reviewers who assume researchers’ roles may demoralize novice researchers who have a strong determination to construct and assemble original, and innovative insights into the body of knowledge. In view of this fact, reviewers ought to appreciate the importance of recognizing the voices and narratives of the authors without imposing their personal interests that may compromise the quality and publication of valuable and well-deserving scholarly papers. On account of this, I conclude this scholarly dialogue by presenting some of the recommendations that may be considered to mitigate the problematized phenomenon.

As qualitative research, this article aims to critically engage on the level of scholarship by modern scholars for pursuing knowledge development in South African public administration. The article also concludes that the purpose of peer review is to evaluate and improve the text and that if scholars perceive their purpose in review as to criticise and not to critique the scientific work for areas of improvement, they expose their weaknesses and biases, which does not contribute to knowledge development and improvement in the scholarship debates.

A journal publishing house grows by maintaining and increasing the level of production of journals over the years. As a result, a non-decreasing trend becomes worrisome, because it may mean some likelihood of decline in journal publications. A declining trend warrants an investigation into this aspect, and possible intervention methods for a turnaround to increase journal publications. A respected publishing house in South Africa showed declining trends in its annual yield of various of its journals. The aim of the study was to measure the journal productivity of various journals in a specified publishing house with specific objectives being to determine the level of production over the years; to compare the level of production for the various journals; and to identify the most produced and the least produced journals. A categorical multivariate time series analysis-based study design was conducted. A trend of published articles in a South African oral health-based journal publishing house was investigated for 11-years from 2008 to 2018 in which 197 journals were used. The journals were under the subfields of direct restorative dentistry (DRD), direct restorative materials (DRM), endodontics and paedodontics. Publications of the paedodontics and direct restorative dentistry and materials journals showed a decline over the years, to their extinction. There was no journal on indirect restorative materials, which is a field related to other restorative journals. Merging these could enhance the popularity of a new one. Then, the constantly low endodontics may be augmented by increasing the journal scope.

A journal publishing house grows by maintaining and increasing the level of production of journals over the years. As a result, a non-decreasing trend becomes worrisome, because it may mean some likelihood of decline in journal publications. A declining trend warrants an investigation into this aspect, and possible intervention methods for a turnaround to increase journal publications. A respected publishing house in South Africa showed declining trends in its annual yield of various of its journals. The aim of the study was to measure the journal productivity of various journals in a specified publishing house with specific objectives being to determine the level of production over the years; to compare the level of production for the various journals; and to identify the most produced and the least produced journals. A categorical multivariate time series analysis-based study design was conducted. A trend of published articles in a South African oral health-based journal publishing house was investigated for 11-years from 2008 to 2018 in which 197 journals were used. The journals were under the subfields of direct restorative dentistry (DRD), direct restorative materials (DRM), endodontics and paedodontics. Publications of the paedodontics and direct restorative dentistry and materials journals showed a decline over the years, to their extinction. There was no journal on indirect restorative materials, which is a field related to other restorative journals. Merging these could enhance the popularity of a new one. Then, the constantly low endodontics may be augmented by increasing the journal scope.

It cannot be nullified that the peer review process is characterized by reviewers who tend to destructively assume the role of researchers. In so doing, this behavior undermines the intellectual ability of researchers, especially novice researchers, who dedicate their time attempting to contribute to scholarly epistemology. Effectively, this concerning behavior of assuming the role of a researcher may denote that the reviewers downplay the reality that researchers certainly know something; no matter how little or greater it is. Thus, it cannot be fair-minded for reviewers to regard themselves as if they are gods of knowledge. With this in mind, this particular paper aims to explore and open a dialogue concerning the challenge of reviewers who destructively assume the role of an author or researcher, thereupon sabotaging the peer review process by imposing their personal scholarly interests. This is against the reality that such conduct may deter potential epistemologies that may potentially make a constructive social impact within and outside the arena of scholarship. In parallel, such behavior from the reviewers may lead to the rejection of scholarly contributions that can generate change in the academic community. By the same token, the rejection of papers, in large part, by the recommendations of destructive reviewers who assume researchers’ roles may demoralize novice researchers who have a strong determination to construct and assemble original, and innovative insights into the body of knowledge. In view of this fact, reviewers ought to appreciate the importance of recognizing the voices and narratives of the authors without imposing their personal interests that may compromise the quality and publication of valuable and well-deserving scholarly papers. On account of this, I conclude this scholarly dialogue by presenting some of the recommendations that may be considered to mitigate the problematized phenomenon.

As qualitative research, this article aims to critically engage on the level of scholarship by modern scholars for pursuing knowledge development in South African public administration. The article also concludes that the purpose of peer review is to evaluate and improve the text and that if scholars perceive their purpose in review as to criticise and not to critique the scientific work for areas of improvement, they expose their weaknesses and biases, which does not contribute to knowledge development and improvement in the scholarship debates.