Abstract

Peer review is crucial for academic research, when checking manuscripts for publishing, considering proposals for research funding, and deciding which submitted contributions to include in conference programmes. Peer reviewers are tasked with assessing readability, scientific merit, accuracy, reliability, novelty, relevance, completeness and focus. Conscientious, experienced peer reviewers add considerable value to scientific manuscripts by working with authors, especially Early Career Researchers (ECRs), to help them achieve the required standards set by editors and publishers. Given the centrality of peer review to academia, it is easy to forget that peer review is often voluntary and unpaid, requiring considerable time and resources. Without peer reviewers, editors and publishers, and conference organisers, many of whom are also voluntary and unpaid, would be tasked with reviewing submissions. This would require considerable time and diverse knowledge and skills, even when the scope of topics for submissions is narrow. The recent substantial rise in the number of journal article retractions, affecting both large and small publishers, raises questions about why the traditional checks and balances put in place by the publishers, especially peer review, do not uncover the problems. This paper will explore both the merits of effective peer review and root causes of problems currently being experienced, with consideration of how peer review could be improved to serve future requirements.