A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections
Steven J. Cooke,
Nathan Young,
Kathryn S. Peiman,
Dominique G. Roche,
Jeff C. Clements,
Andrew N. Kadykalo,
Jennifer F. Provencher,
Rajeev Raghavan,
Maria C. DeRosa,
Robert J. Lennox,
Aminah Robinson Fayek,
Melania E. Cristescu,
Stuart J. Murray,
Joanna Quinn,
Kelly D. Cobey,
Howard I. Browman
Affiliations
Steven J. Cooke
Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and the Institute of Environmental & Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Nathan Young
School of Sociological & Anthropological Studies, University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
Kathryn S. Peiman
Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and the Institute of Environmental & Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Dominique G. Roche
Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and the Institute of Environmental & Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Jeff C. Clements
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Gulf Region, 343 Université Avenue, Moncton, NB E1C 9B6, Canada
Andrew N. Kadykalo
Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and the Institute of Environmental & Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Jennifer F. Provencher
Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and the Institute of Environmental & Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Rajeev Raghavan
Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Kochi, India
Maria C. DeRosa
Department of Chemistry and Institute of Biochemistry, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Robert J. Lennox
Ocean Tracking Network, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford St, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
Aminah Robinson Fayek
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, 7-226 Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada
Melania E. Cristescu
Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Docteur Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada
Stuart J. Murray
Department of English Language and Literature, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
Joanna Quinn
Centre for Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Reconstruction, Department of Political Science and Faculty of Law, Western University, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada
Kelly D. Cobey
The Heart Institute and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4W7, Canada
Howard I. Browman
Institute of Marine Research, Acoustics and Observation Methodologies Research Group, Sauganeset 16, 5392 Storebø, Norway
This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.
