Reviewers should not destructively assume the role of a researcher

Abstract

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.

Keywords: {'name': 'authors'}, {'name': 'destructive'}, {'name': 'constructive'}, {'name': 'publication'}, {'name': 'reviewers'}, {'name': 'role'}

Authors & affiliations

Mlamli Diko
Affiliation not supplied

Deposited references

Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.

DOI: 10.1038/515467a

DOI: 10.1007/s12015-022-10465-2

DOI: 10.1007/BF01048016

DOI: 10.1126/science.283.5403.789

DOI: 10.1007/s11948-009-9135-4

DOI: 10.1080/00091383.1982.10569910

DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican1077-34

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1011086

DOI: 10.1023/A:1016082229411

DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12529

Hanford Jr, L. D. (1994). The reviewer is always right? The Appraisal Journal, 62(3), 358.

DOI: 10.3126/hprospect.v21i2.42907

DOI: 10.1001/jama.263.10.1438

Jana, S. (2019). A history and development of peer-review process. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66(4), 152-162.

DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784

DOI: 10.1080/00220973.1989.10806503

DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00065912

DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1

DOI: 10.1176/ajp.1974.131.12.1363

DOI: 10.1080/08989621003791945

DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z

DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12824

DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02026.x

DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6

DOI: 10.1177/1056492612461306

DOI: 10.7748/nr2007.04.14.3.36.c6031

DOI: 10.1126/science.366.6472.1433