Nyssa Silbiger still recalls the rude remark that reviewer three made in 2014 about her first paper describing her PhD research. âThe phrases I have so far avoided using in this review are, âlipstick on a pigâ, and âbullshit baffles brainsâ,â they wrote.
To Silbiger, a marine biologist at the University of Hawaiâi at MÄnoa, the words cut deep. The critique not only made it difficult to work out how she should revise her manuscript on the bioerosion of coral reefs, but also led her to question her abilities and whether she belonged in science at all. âAs a twenty-something student, that can have a really big impact on your ability not only to conduct science, but your whole future career,â says Silbiger, who now leads her own marine-ecology group at the university.
Can Germany rein in its academic bullying problem?
Peer review is supposed to be critical. But too often, Silbiger says, reviewer feedback crosses the line into an unprofessional realm. Such unacceptable behaviours range from outright bullying of other scientists and personal comments about the authors to mean-spirited or unhelpful remarks without constructive, evidence-based criticism. In 2019, Silbiger and Amber Stubler, a marine ecologist at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California, conducted a survey of roughly 1,100 scientists. Some 58% of respondents reported that they had encountered unprofessional peer-review comments1. In particular, women, non-binary scientists and people of colour said that the experience had harmed their confidence and productivity and delayed their career advancement.
Attention to the issue has grown ever since and, fortunately, so have ways to address it. Journals, editors and scientific organizations have begun to explore a range of solutions to prevent bullying during the peer-review process and to hold mean-spirited reviewers accountable. Many scientists are also taking matters into their own hands by pushing back on unprofessional reviews.
âThere is progress being made, just in small increments and in different flavours,â says Emma Dunne, a palaeobiologist at the Friedrich Alexander University of ErlangenâNuremberg in Germany, and the ethics editor of the journal Historical Biology. âI would like to think that things can only get better.â
Why do nasty peer reviews happen?
However negatively a referee views a study, thereâs always a polite, evidence-based way to express criticism, says Sally Thomas, the Palaeontological Associationâs publications officer. During the organizationâs peer-review workshop for early-career researchers, she stresses the importance of being careful with language (see âDonât do itâ). âAlways put yourself in the shoes of the author,â says Thomas, who is based in Cambridge, UK. Start by writing something positive, she says, âand then lay out what is not so good about the work in a totally unemotional and logical wayâ.
Donât do it
As a peer reviewer, avoid harmful and unhelpful comments such as these real examples.
âą âThe writing of this paper was atrocious.â4
âą âThe result of attending university in a developing country.â4
âą âYou should look closely at a career outside of science.â1
âą âThis young lady is lucky to have been mentored by the leading men in the field.â4
âą âUtterly disappointed in this submission, it achieves nothing, and was a waste of funding.â4
âą âThe authorâs last name sounds Spanish. I didnât read the manuscript because Iâm sure itâs full of bad English.â1
âą âThis manuscript was not worth my time so I did not read it and recommend rejection.â4
âą âI have rewritten so much of this troubled paper that I should be included as an author.â4
âą âThe first author is a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers.â1
âą âThis paper is, simply, manure.â1
âą âWhat the authors have done is an insult to science.â1
âą âThe authorâs status as a trans person has distorted his view of sex beyond the biological reality.â1
âą âThe English is not good enough; please have it reviewed by a native speaker.â
âą âThe authors provide us with a nice example [of] what they can, and cannot do, and how they (wrongly) understand nature and ecology.â4
âą âThis person works for an NGO [non-governmental organization], you shouldnât believe anything they say.â1
Yet research indicates that some scientists worry that being too nice will allow poor-quality studies to be published or think that authors deserve harsh comments for submitting substandard work2. Other times, overly harsh reviews might be intended to hinder or delay the publication of papers by competing laboratory groups. Personal snipes at study authors are also widespread, including ones targeting early-career scientists, women and people of colour, notes palaeontologist Farid Saleh at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. He recalls how a reviewer once singled him and a female co-author out on a paper with 12 other authors, âcalling us disingenuous, not real scientists, and making other personal attacksâ. Remarks that disparage the authorsâ English-language skills without constructive feedback are unprofessional and can exacerbate the existing challenges that individuals whose primary language is not English face in scientific publishing, adds Valeria RamĂrez Castañeda, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied such challenges3.
Not all rude-seeming reviews are intentional, because cultural attitudes to directness vary. A blunt comment from one scientist might be perceived as rude by researchers who are used to more diplomatic language, RamĂrez Castañeda says. Reviews by scientists who lack the skills or experience to give nuanced feedback, senior researchers accustomed to the more-adversarial academic cultures of the past and scientists who donât have the time to thoughtfully consider a paper might seem harsher than intended.
What authors can do
Avoiding problematic peer reviews starts by considering which journal to submit to and what its peer-review practices are. Specialists agree that the most common form of peer review â single-anonymous, in which referee identities are concealed from the authors but not vice versa â can promote unprofessional comments by giving reviewers anonymity.
Valeria RamĂrez Castañeda says peer reviewers shouldnât penalize a lack of English fluency.Credit: Valeria RamĂrez Castañeda
Fortunately, many journals have begun to offer other kinds of peer review â such as double-anonymous review, in which both author and reviewer identities are concealed. This can help to prevent problematic comments and review-related rejections when reviewers are biased against authors from some demographics or nations. IOP Publishing (IOPP), a publisher of physical-science journals in Bristol, UK, has found few differences in overall rejection rates for papers with double-anonymous reviews compared with single-anonymous ones. However, an internal analysis of 2024 data covering around 28,000 papers suggests that some groups might benefit from double-anonymous reviews. Scientists in Africa were 4% more likely to have their paper accepted when the authors chose to be anonymous during the peer-review stage. But there is no clear trend for women and non-binary authors, says Laura Feetham-Walker, IOPPâs reviewer-engagement manager. And, in some scientific fields, âitâs not that challenging [for a reviewer] to identify who the senior authors are on any paperâ, even if they are anonymized, notes Simon Harold, chief editor of Nature Ecology & Evolution in London. (Natureâs Careers team is independent of the journalâs publisher, Springer Nature, which also publishes Nature Ecology & Evolution and other Nature Portfolio journals.)
Many journals, including the BMJ, Nature and some of the other Nature Portfolio journals (see go.nature.com/4nvd9zs), also offer open, or transparent, peer review. In this case, the reviews â and sometimes the refereesâ identities â are published with the paper. Although this practice can encourage more-considerate behaviour, early-career scientists often worry about retaliation when critically reviewing papers from more-senior or influential authors. The sense of being able to speak freely with anonymity âis why I think the anonymous peer-review system is the defaultâ, Harold adds.
Should I tell anyone that I suspect misconduct in a paper Iâm reviewing?
When biologist Mayank Chugh was pursuing a masterâs degree, members of his lab group in India received harsh feedback and demoralizing comments about their written English in some of their papers. So, they decided to submit his first paper to the journal eLife. The journal has both a consultative review process â in which editors and reviewers discuss the manuscript together and share consolidated feedback with the authors â and a policy to publish reviews and encourage reviewers to disclose their names. âWe trusted that process over what we had experienced before,â says Chugh, who is now at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a member of eLifeâs early-career advisory group. Morteza Mahmoudi, a nanoscientist and anti-bullying researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing, takes further steps when he anticipates an unproductive peer-review process â something he has often experienced with papers that challenge commercially important assumptions in his field. He now asks editors to exclude certain researchers from reviewing â an option that many journals provide. In these cases, âI donât get those unnecessary delays in the process or harsh commentsâ, says Mahmoudi.
After receiving a reviewerâs report, if authors arenât sure whether the language is problematic, Feetham-Walker recommends that the authors ask themselves: âHas this comment helped me to improve my paper, or has it just undermined my confidence?â Importantly, peer review should critique only the science, she adds. âThe main defining factor of unprofessional comments is that they are personal.â If still in doubt, Mahmoudi advises authors to consult their colleagues.
Itâs important to remember that harsh reviews can help authors to improve their paper, notes Mirvat Alasnag, an interventional cardiologist at King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. âIf itâs not what you wanted to hear, leave the noise behind, but try as hard as you can to look at the comments and see if theyâre valuable,â she says.
However, in the case of especially egregious comments, she and others recommend flagging the problematic behaviour to the manuscript-handling editor (see âHow to avoid â and push back on â peer review bullyingâ). Silbiger suggests that authors write an e-mail thanking the editor and reviewer for the critical appraisal and noting that they will take the suggestions into consideration. Then, they should detail the comments they felt were unethical and unprofessional and ask that those comments be removed from the review process â and possibly flagged to the reviewer as being unhelpful.
How to avoid â and push back on â peer-review bullying
Researchers advise on how to avoid and address problematic comments from reviewers.
Choose the right journal. Consider journals that have transparent, open review processes in which reviews are made public, for instance, or that give authors the option to veto certain reviewers.
Focus on the science. Try to isolate the scientific critiques in problematic reviews, and if theyâre valuable, focus on addressing them. If in doubt, get a second opinion from colleagues on whether a comment is worth addressing.
Write to the editor. Thank the editor for their time and politely point out the specific comments you found discriminatory or rude.
Consider appealing. If you think that a problematic review has unduly influenced the review process and led to a rejection, consider appealing the editorâs decision.
After Silbiger revised her manuscript in 2014 â and reviewer three responded with further unprofessional comments â her PhD supervisor wrote to the journalâs chief editor. After explaining how the team had addressed the valid criticisms and pointing out the unprofessional remarks that couldnât be addressed, she asked the chief editor to decide whether to accept or reject the paper. The paper was ultimately published and has been cited 88 times. âIf youâre junior, sometimes it helps to have your senior author be the one to write the letter,â Silbiger says.