Comments
Muhammad Sarwar
14 July, 2025
Thank you for sharing this compelling and much-needed reflection on the realities and evolving expectations of peer review. This thoughtful critique of commonly accepted "good practices" opens up a valuable space for rethinking how we approach peer review in both resource-rich and resource-constrained settings.
As a reader, I find your observations on reviewer compensation and co-reviewing especially relevant. These are issues we tend to brush aside, yet they sit at the heart of fairness and sustainability in academic publishing. Your point about context, how one-size-fits-all approaches often fail, is something I strongly agree with. Peer review must adapt to changing technologies and realities while maintaining its core values of quality and integrity.
MI Pasha
14 July, 2025A thoughtful critique of peer review practices. However, the challenges are well addressed; the piece could benefit from a deeper exploration of scalable solutions, especially for under-resourced journals adapting to digital and AI-driven systems.
Clara Slone
14 July, 2025Thank you for raising some much-needed questions about peer review practices. Your viewpoint on reviewer compensation, co-reviewing, and the importance of context really stood out to me. We often overlook these issues, but they’re key to making peer review fair and sustainable. This piece is a great reminder that peer review isn’t one-size-fits-all, and it’s time we start adapting it to better serve both authors and reviewers.
Maryam Sayab
14 July, 2025
The point about co-review potentially becoming a new layer of unpaid labor is especially striking. As we move toward more inclusive and transparent publishing ecosystems, we must ask not just how peer review functions, but who it serves—and at what cost. It’s good to see someone openly challenge the assumptions we often take for granted in academic publishing.
Curious to hear how others are grappling with these tensions in their own editorial roles.
Kristine Guo
14 July, 2025
Researchers are overwhelmed and being asked to review more papers than ever. So it's not surprising that many are now saying “no” to review invitations. Peer review is invisible labor so some compensations should be acted...Money might motivate some, but it could also attract people who rush through reviews just for the cash.
That said, not all rewards have to be monetary. Instead, We could offer public recognition, certificates, or even discounts on APCs or conference fees. Even something as simple as naming a “Top Reviewer” could make a big difference.
HIN LYHOUR
14 July, 2025This article is tremendously insightful because Dr. Haseeb summarizes key takeaways that are clear, short, and applicable. After reading it thoroughly, I started to think about some journals that I have worked for as a reviewer. Some have clear and straightforward regulations and guidelines, respecting the time and effort of the reviewers and recognizing their contributions by issuing certificates, but some do not. In this regard, I may also share this article and its main ideas with other researchers and publishers in my country to extract necessary points for real applications.
Gharib Hafizov
14 July, 2025If I were the editor-in-chief, I would not ask someone to conduct an independent review of the manuscripts submitted to the journal, but would instruct the members of the editorial board to evaluate the scientific novelty, relevance, methodology, compliance with the requirements of the journal, the quality of the presentation of the material and compliance with ethical standards. I would choose 1-2 notables in each field for the editorial board of my journal and pay them royalties for each review.
Dr. Sharif Mohd.
14 July, 2025
I sincerely thank Dr. Haseeb for this thought-provoking article on the peer-review process. Peer reviewers play a vital role in upholding academic quality, and their contributions should be valued.
In my experience, it’s discouraging when a manuscript is reviewed by multiple referees who offer conflicting feedback—only for the editor to reject it outright without giving the author a chance to respond. This raises concerns about the fairness and consistency of the review process. While reviewers’ insights are important, editorial decisions should also consider the author’s perspective to foster a more transparent and balanced approach.
Moreover, the current peer-review system often lacks fairness in how reviewers are recognized. Incentives, financial or otherwise, should be inclusive and globally standardized. Reviewers, regardless of their country, deserve equal acknowledgment for their time and effort. This would encourage greater participation and help strengthen the integrity of the entire scholarly ecosystem.
Dr. NAZIR Hussain
14 July, 2025The author of the article, Dr. Haseeb Irfanullah should be appreciated for providing valuable points and suggestions regarding the reviewers of articles/research papers during the publication process, while some readers and other stakeholders have shared their valuable viewpoints. The opinions of all the contributors are well-founded and based on their personal experiences. What needed is that publishers should read these and consider updating their policies on individual basis, depending on their prevailing conditions individually. However, they must publish their policies on the website of their journals. In my view, uniformity in this regard is not compulsory at all. Each journal may compensate its reviewers as it likes, but within the moral framework and laws of the publishing industry.
Dr. Sharif Mohd.
14 July, 2025
I sincerely thank Dr. Haseeb for this thought-provoking article on the peer-review process. Peer reviewers play a vital role in upholding academic quality, and their contributions should be valued.
In my experience, it’s discouraging when a manuscript is reviewed by multiple referees who offer conflicting feedback—only for the editor to reject it outright without giving the author a chance to respond. This raises concerns about the fairness and consistency of the review process. While reviewers’ insights are important, editorial decisions should also consider the author’s perspective to foster a more transparent and balanced approach.
Moreover, the current peer-review system often lacks fairness in how reviewers are recognized. Incentives, financial or otherwise, should be inclusive and globally standardized. Reviewers, regardless of their country, deserve equal acknowledgment for their time and effort. This would encourage greater participation and help strengthen the integrity of the entire scholarly ecosystem.
Dr. Aftab Alam Khan
14 July, 2025I think the good practices in peer review are truly effective, but are they just idealized standards? . While they aim to enhance fairness and rigor, practical challenges often limit their application. It's essential to evaluate not just the intent, but the real-world impact of these practices
Prof. Dr. Maan Abdul Azeez Shafeeq
14 July, 2025Thank you, Dr. Haseeb, for this wonderful and distinguished article. The most important thing in peer review is choosing reliable and scientifically qualified reviewers, not exceeding 3 reviewers. The most important thing is the agreement of opinions and ideas between the reviewers, editors and authors of the research, and not putting too much pressure on the authors in terms of the opinions of the reviewers and being strict with the opinions of the reviewers, with the importance of rewarding the reviewers with financial returns to encourage them to review in a scientific and academic manner and transparently. It is difficult to integrate the opinions of all participants in the research with the reviewers, but as much as possible, the research is made scientifically sound and in line with the policies of the journal. I repeat my thanks once again to all those responsible for the integrity of the journal.
Aniela Pinto Kempka
14 July, 2025Thank you, Dr. Irfanullah, for this insightful and necessary reflection. The way you deconstruct widely accepted peer review practices through ethical and contextual lenses is both bold and refreshing. I especially appreciated the emphasis on local constraints, co-review dynamics, and the often-unspoken asymmetries in recognition and compensation. As a researcher and reviewer, I believe it is time we move beyond viewing peer review as a mere gatekeeping tool and reframe it as a space for constructive and equitable dialogue. Your reflections encourage this shift and are valuable for editors, reviewers, and authors alike. Grateful to Editor’s Café for providing a platform for these conversations.
Dr Ameha Tefera Tessema
14 July, 2025
Thanks! For Timely and elegant article concerning peer-reviewer. Peer-reviewing is time and energy consuming process inorder to say yes or no of the nobility, problem solvent and an addition to the existing
Litrature.
while reviewing the research article the reviewer should look into not only the research stature but should also look into the materiality of the title inorder to have elegant research paper to be published. Since many decorative article have been seeing publishing with nothing valuability on top journals , many elegant papers and highly problem solving papers rejected by many top journals. So inorder to have better ,applicable and publishable paper, the peer-reviewers should be paid according to Thier comments since many journals seeks to receive positive comments,recognized and should to have most likely relevant knowledge according thier research publications.
Faaiz Ali Shah
14 July, 2025
Being Peer Reviewer for 24 national/international IF Biomedical Journals and reviewed more 980 Orthopaedic manuscripts over a decade..I am more concerned and anxious about the quality of manuscript under review than writing my own manuscript.
Haseeb did an excellent analysis of peer review process.We must struggle to eliminate flwas from peer review process.Peer Review should be for Acadamician by Academician and for Academician.
Dr Bello RS
14 July, 2025I thank Dr Haseeb for this eye-opening article on the discussions around peer-review . As par the need and role of peer reviewers in article publication process,they are like facilitators whose relevance cannot be ignored.
However, the issues are around the competence of the reviewer, trust on reviews, reward systems and sentiments of the reviewer.
Competence: The editorial board have lost confidence in the review process when a single paper will be subject to over 5 reviewers giving different opinions. I will not accept a review of any article that have multiple reviewers. This does not show competence and professionalism. It undermines the integrity of the reviewer. Reviewers of any article should be maximum three.
Other issues are also critical to peer review and requires equal attention. The reward system should be across board, not country specific. International reviewers should also be renumerated both financially and otherwise to encourage reviewers.