Beyond the Review: The Editorial Duty to Uphold Professional Conduct

Abstract

Peer review fails when it is delivered without fairness, accountability, or respect. When unprofessional reviews are communicated without editorial intervention, they undermine trust, distort scientific dialogue, and disproportionately harm early-career and underrepresented researchers. This article combines a detailed case study with evidence from the literature to illustrate how reviewer misconduct can escalate into editorial failure, and why such outcomes are avoidable. Mechanisms already exist to prevent them, including pre-screening, structured review forms, training, appeals processes, and reviewer tracking, but require consistent application. The central problem is not the absence of guidance, but the lack of enforcement. Restoring credibility in peer review depends on editors treating oversight as a duty of stewardship, ensuring that critique remains rigorous, constructive, and respectful.

1. The Purpose and the Problem

The peer review process is a central characteristic of scientific publishing. Models vary between journals and usually rely on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope (Miller et al., 2024). It is intended to ensure the rigour, reliability, and fairness of scientific publishing (Bruce et al., 2016; Drozdz & Ladomery, 2024). Ideally, it serves as a mechanism for error correction and quality control, allowing manuscripts to be judged on scientific merit rather than personal standing. The process relies on three expectations: reviewers will provide professional and evidence-based critique, editors will exercise oversight, and authors will receive constructive evaluations that improve their work.

Yet a substantial body of evidence suggests that these ideals are frequently compromised (Bruce et al., 2016; Horbach & Halffman, 2018; Joseph, 2024; Teixeira da Silva, 2025). Surveys and meta-analyses consistently report that hostile or unprofessional reviews are common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20–40% of authors reporting at least one such experience (Souder, 2011; Comer & Schwartz, 2014; Gerwing et al., 2020; Hyland & Jiang, 2020; Lanier, 2021; Stachus, 2022). The most significant controversies relate to the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivisation, and publication of peer reviewer comments (Kusumoto et al., 2023). Furthermore, instances of hostile or dismissive reviews, ad hominem criticism, and the unfiltered transmission of inappropriate comments to authors have been documented across disciplines (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019; Mavrogenis et al., 2020). Such failures highlight not only weaknesses in individual reviewing practice but also deficiencies in editorial responsibility.

Various strategies have been proposed to strengthen peer review, including training and structured checklists (Bruce et al., 2016), the use of large language models (Doskaliuk et al., 2025; Lee et al., 2025), open review models (Ross-Hellauer, 2017), and technical innovations such as blockchain-based systems designed to enhance transparency and trust (Morales-Alarcón et al., 2024), although such approaches may also extend the duration of the review process (Gaudino et al., 2021). Yet the evidence for their effectiveness remains limited (Polnaszek et al., 2024), and none can substitute for active editorial oversight (Resnik & Elmore, 2016; Strauss et al., 2023).

The analysis below examines one detailed case study in the field of the real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methodology. It is presented not as an isolated anecdote, but as an illustration of wider problems that have been repeatedly identified in studies of the peer review process (Vercellini et al., 2016; Winterstein et al., 2023; Drozdz & Ladomery, 2024).

2. Defining Reviewer Misconduct

Not all poor reviews constitute misconduct. To distinguish, an explicit framework is required. According to guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (COPE, 2017), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (ICMJE, 2025), and the Council of Science Editors (CSE) (CSE, 2020), reviewers are expected to uphold standards of respect, objectivity, accuracy, and fairness.

Departures from these principles constitute misconduct when they involve behaviours such as directing criticism at authors rather than their work, using sarcasm or ridicule in place of reasoned analysis, dismissing manuscripts with sweeping generalisations unsupported by evidence, or overstepping the reviewer’s role by imposing personal preferences or dictating editorial outcomes.

By anchoring our discussion in these established standards, it becomes possible to distinguish reviews that are simply poor in quality from those that actively undermine the integrity of the peer-review process.

3. A Case Study in Reviewer Misconduct: qPCR as an Example

To illustrate these concerns, we draw on anonymised excerpts from a review of a manuscript on quantification uncertainty in low-copy reverse transcription (RT)-qPCR. The manuscript received four reviews in total: three were constructive, positive, and focused on improving clarity and context. The fourth, in contrast, was exceptionally hostile, spanning two rounds and totalling 28 pages (11 in the first round, 17 in the second), combining sarcasm, factual error, and dismissive tone. This case did not occur at Publications, but at another international journal; details are anonymised to preserve confidentiality.

Several excerpts demonstrate how legitimate scientific points were obscured by inappropriate tone. The reviewer dismissed a detailed 14-page reply to their initial 11-page review in a 17-page second review round as “liberally festooned with didactic pedagogy”, a phrase that substitutes ridicule for engagement. Another comment began with “Dear GOD do I realise that…”, a remark more at home in an online forum than in scientific discourse. Elsewhere, the reviewer declared: “Basically, this is looking like another case of the authors have a very specific, but poorly articulated idea of how qPCR is normally performed,” a sweeping generalisation that ignored the professional expertise of the author team. Even innocuous points were framed sarcastically, as in the aside “And here we go! Even with…”, signalling impatience rather than analysis.

Each of these remarks could have been conveyed in constructive terms. For example, instead of personal incredulity, “I am honestly trying to picture a scenario where the authors’ claims make sense, and I’m not seeing it”, the same concern could be expressed as: “Consider providing a schematic example to clarify the argument.” The contrast underscores the central point: misconduct is not about silencing criticism, but about ensuring that critique is expressed in professional, evidence-based language.

Building on the framework outlined above, these examples can be grouped into broad categories: ridicule, dismissive tone, sweeping generalisations, personal incredulity, ad hominem implication, and sarcastic interjection. These categories are not unique to this case but recur across published analyses of reviewer misconduct (COPE, 2017; Wicherts et al., 2012; Tennant et al., 2017). They inevitably overlap, but their purpose here is illustrative rather than taxonomic. Each departs from the professional standards set out by COPE, ICMJE, and CSE, yet each can be reformulated into constructive critique without diluting critical intent.

Table 1. All inappropriate examples are verbatim quotations from the same reviewer’s reports on the case study manuscript described in Section 3, grouped into broad categories of unprofessional conduct. The categories are illustrative and inevitably overlap, as such behaviours often co-occur. Each inappropriate example is paired with a constructive alternative that conveys the same scientific concern in professional language. The table is intended as a didactic illustration rather than a formal taxonomy.

Category	Inappropriate Example(s)	Constructive Alternative
Ridicule/Sarcasm	“Dear GOD do I realise that….” “Cheerfully using 1 µL dilutions, if that helps…”	“The amplification conditions described may not support optimal efficiency; clarification of methodological justification would strengthen this section.” “Please clarify the rationale for the chosen dilution volume and its effect on assay precision.”
Dismissive Tone	“Liberally festooned with didactic pedagogy.” “This is just not worth publishing.”	“While comprehensive, the response could be more focused on the empirical implications of the data.” “The current manuscript requires further clarification and restructuring before it can be considered for publication.”
Sweeping Generalisation	“No real paper uses this buffer composition.” “The authors frequently use qPCR methods that are almost entirely divorced from reality or practicality.”	“This buffer composition is unusual; please explain why it was selected and whether it has been validated for your application.” “Some experimental conditions appear atypical; please clarify their relevance to diagnostic or research scenarios.”
Unsupported Personal Incredulity	“I am honestly trying to picture a scenario where the authors’ claims make sense, and I’m not seeing it.” “I don’t even know where to begin with this.”	“Consider adding a simplified example or schematic to clarify the argument.” “The introduction would benefit from clearer structure and a more focused presentation of the research question.”
Ad Hominem Implication	“Basically, this is looking like another case of the authors having a very specific, but poorly articulated idea of how qPCR is normally performed.” “The authors have no idea what they’re doing.”	“Certain descriptions of the qPCR workflow appear unclear or inconsistent with standard practice; please clarify how these steps align with widely used protocols, or justify intentional deviations.”
Sarcastic/Exasperated Interjection	“And here we go! Even with…” “If I were the editor, I would desk-reject this immediately.”	“This point has arisen earlier in the manuscript and warrants further clarification.” “The current draft requires substantial revision before it can be considered suitable for peer review.”

illustrates this contrast by pairing anonymised excerpts from the review with suggested alternatives that convey the same concerns in a professional and evidence-based manner. All of the examples shown are taken from a single reviewer’s reports; more than one example is provided for each category to illustrate the range of unprofessional language employed, alongside constructive alternatives demonstrating how the same scientific concerns could have been expressed appropriately.

These examples show that reviewer misconduct, expressed through factual errors, sweeping generalisations, and mischaracterisations, can undermine or nullify even legitimate points. In such cases, the comments are stripped of substantive value, leaving tone and inaccuracy to dominate. The damage is compounded when such reports are passed to authors without moderation, allowing distortion to stand unchecked.

4. When Oversight Fails

The significance of this case lies not in the reviewer’s conduct, but in the editorial decision to transmit an unmoderated outlier as if it carried equal or greater weight than three constructive reports. By allowing this imbalance to stand, the editor converted individual hostility into institutional failure. Each of the hostile comments concerned potentially valid methodological issues, yet in the hands of an unchecked reviewer, critique was distorted by tone and inaccuracy. Editorial passivity allowed this distortion to reach the authors unchallenged.

The responsibilities of editors extend beyond simply collecting and forwarding reviews. Guidance from COPE, ICMJE, and CSE makes clear that editors are expected to exercise judgement in ensuring reviews are professional, evidence-based, and free from inappropriate language or bias (COPE, 2017; CSE, 2020; ICMJE, 2025). This responsibility includes filtering out ad hominem remarks, requesting revisions of unprofessional reports, and contextualising outlier reviews against the broader body of feedback.

Failure to take these steps risks converting individual misconduct into systemic failure. When editors transmit reviews that breach professional standards without comment or moderation, they effectively legitimise those reviews. Neutrality in this context is not neutral: it functions as tacit endorsement, allowing tone and inaccuracy to carry the same weight as reasoned critique.

Such failures are not merely procedural; they have real consequences for authors.

5. The Human Cost of Hostile Review

Surveys suggest that unprofessional comments are experienced by a substantial proportion of authors across disciplines and career stages (Gerwing et al., 2020). Their impact is not evenly distributed: evidence shows that women, early-career researchers, and underrepresented groups are disproportionately affected, and in some cases, abandon submissions altogether (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019; Strauss et al., 2023).

The consequences extend beyond the immediate manuscript. Hostile reviews erode confidence, delay publication, and discourage participation in scientific dialogue. What may appear as a single unpleasant encounter is in fact a systemic risk, one that diminishes diversity and weakens the credibility of science as an inclusive enterprise.

Understanding why such damaging reviews persist requires attention to the structures that enable them. Chief among these is anonymity: while it can protect reviewers and encourage candour, without editorial oversight, it also shields unprofessional conduct from accountability.

6. Anonymity, Open Review, and Double-Anonymity

Anonymity lies at the heart of most peer review systems. At its best, it allows reviewers to be candid without fear of retaliation and helps keep the focus on the work rather than the author. Yet, as the previous section makes clear, anonymity can also shield unprofessional conduct from accountability when editorial oversight is weak. As with open data, transparency alone is insufficient unless someone is tasked with active oversight; without enforcement, openness risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive (Wicherts et al., 2012).

Hostile reviews may persist not because editors condone them, but because anonymity makes it easier to transmit sarcasm, ad hominem remarks, or dismissive generalisations without consequence.

Different models of peer review attempt to balance protection with accountability. Single-anonymous review, the dominant model, shields reviewers but leaves authors exposed to an asymmetry of power (Bravo et al., 2019). Double-anonymous review can reduce bias related to gender, institution, or geography, and has been shown to increase representation of women and reduce prestige bias (Budden et al., 2008; Tomkins et al., 2017). More recent analyses have extended this to triple-blind review, although systematic evaluations remain limited (Polnaszek et al., 2024). Open peer review, in contrast, increases transparency by disclosing reviewer identities or publishing referee reports, and has been championed as a way to build trust, but it may also discourage frank critique, particularly where junior reviewers assess senior researchers (Ross-Hellauer, 2017; Tennant et al., 2017; Bravo et al., 2019).

Each model carries advantages and drawbacks, and the evidence for consistent improvements in quality or fairness remains mixed (Horbach & Halffman, 2018). What unites them, however, is the need for active editorial responsibility. Without it, anonymity risks becoming a shield for misconduct rather than a safeguard for integrity.

The challenge, therefore, is not to identify a single “correct” model of peer review, but to ensure that whichever model is used is accompanied by practical mechanisms.

7. Towards Constructive Reform

The defence that “we cannot edit reviews” is no longer tenable, even though it continues to be voiced by some editors in public fora (O’Grady, 2020). Reform requires not only comprehensive guidelines but also practical measures that are both realistic and scalable (Dergaa et al., 2023). Some mechanisms are already in practice. Pre-screening of reviews is routine at certain journals, where editors or associate editors read reports before transmission and request revisions when tone is inappropriate (Resnik & Elmore, 2016). Structured review forms that require comment on specific aspects of a manuscript are increasingly used and offer a simple safeguard against vague or sweeping dismissals (Bruce et al., 2016). Reviewer training modules have been piloted by several publishers, though uptake remains uneven (Callaham & Tercier, 2007; Warne, 2016). Appeals processes have been established at some journals, demonstrating feasibility when clear policies are in place (Eisen et al., 2020; Hamilton et al., 2020). Reviewer tracking is technically straightforward, allowing editors to monitor patterns of behaviour (Squazzoni et al., 2017; Bravo et al., 2019), but requires a cultural willingness to cease re-inviting those who repeatedly breach professional norms.

These mechanisms vary in their demands. Whilst some are administrative adjustments and others require cultural change, none are unattainable. Their gradual adoption suggests that editorial inaction is not a matter of impossibility, but of priority. What remains essential is the commitment of editors to adopt and enforce these practices.

8. A Call for Editorial Responsibility

The central problem is not a lack of guidance but a failure to enforce it. If the peer review system is to retain credibility, journals must recommit to three principles: fairness, accountability, and respect. A review that an editor would not defend in public should not be transmitted in private. A comment that a reviewer would not deliver in person should not be written anonymously.

Peer review is an expression of scholarly responsibility, not an instrument of unchecked authority. Editors must exercise their duty not only to evaluate science but to protect the standards of professional dialogue that give the process its legitimacy.

The case study presented here illustrates how easily one hostile review, left unchecked, can distort the balance of feedback, overshadow constructive reports, and inflict disproportionate harm on authors. It also shows that this outcome is avoidable. Mechanisms already exist to moderate tone, encourage constructive critique, and hold reviewers accountable. What is needed is not new guidance, but the consistent editorial will to apply it.

By addressing reviewer misconduct directly and enforcing the standards already articulated by COPE, ICMJE, and CSE, journals can strengthen trust in the peer review process and safeguard its central purpose: the rigorous, constructive, and respectful evaluation of scientific work. In publishing this article, Publications signals that this conversation is necessary and that reform is both possible and overdue. These mechanisms vary in their demands. Whilst some are administrative adjustments and others require cultural change, none are unattainable. Their gradual adoption suggests that editorial inaction is not a matter of impossibility, but of priority. What remains essential is the commitment of editors to adopt and enforce these practices.