Abstract
Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and whowants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments.We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review.We provide examples of how changes in the peerreview system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists’ experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3546-3565 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General |
| Volume | 152 |
| Issue number | 12 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2023 |
Funding
This work was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation (DGE-2224777) and the American Psychological Association (Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these funding agencies. The authors thank members of the Reviewer Zero Advisory Board (Neil Lewis, Jr., Percival Matthews, Richard Prather, Valerie Purdie-Greenaway, Bernadette Sánchez, and Valerie Jones Taylor) and the SPARK Society founders (Jean E. Fox Tree, Alejandro Lleras, Ayanna K. Thomas, and Duane G. Watson) for their support of Reviewer Zero and their constructive advice. They also thank previous members of the Reviewer Zero committee (Shai Davidai, Anna Fisher, and Steven Zhao) for their contributions to design and analysis of survey data and work securing initial funding. Finally, they thank numerous individuals from the psychological science community for pointing out resources and providing feedback on a preprint of the article. To learn more about Reviewer Zero, please visit the following website: https://www.reviewerzero.net/about. In the development of this article, preliminary findings and ideas were presented at the following conferences: Midwestern Psychological Association in 2022 and 2023, Society for Experimental Social Psychology in 2022, Psychonomic Society in 2022, and The Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s Annual Convention in 2023. Survey findings were shared in an Executive Summary posted on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/jqy4k. Finally, an earlier version of the article was shared on the preprint server, PsyArXiv, in December 2022. The authors provide a brief summary of survey data; the instrument is available at https://osf.io/u2d9j.
Keywords
- culture cycle
- gender disparities
- peer review
- racial disparities
- systemic bias
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- General Psychology
- Developmental Neuroscience
