Changing the Culture of Peer Review for a More Inclusive and Equitable Psychological Science

Abstract

Peer review is a core component of scientific progression. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited, and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite peer review’s place as a core scientific practice, few reviewers receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer review system 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. Changes in the peer review system must 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.

Participant diversity in Psychophysiology

“…Although the SPR website only lists the name and institutional affiliation of Psychophysiology 's editorial board, the names and affiliations suggest a reasonably diverse range of editors in terms of sex and country of affiliated institution. Cundiff (2012) and Aly et al, 2022 note that limiting the diversity of authors and editors within a journal limits the theories and subsequent work that the published research inspires, perhaps by increasing the diversity of authors and editors, SPR has done the opposite and inspired more work with diverse samples. Regardless of the mechanism, SPR should continue to support diversity among its member scientists and advocate for comprehensive reporting of sample characteristics.…”

“…demographics, journal article reporting standards, moderation, open science (Cundiff, 2012). Furthermore, the current culture of peer review reifies this lack of representation, due to disparities in responses to critical reviewer comments and pushes to publish research including non-WEIRD samples in "special interest" journals (Aly et al, 2022). Do the claims of being "raceless" and "womanless" also describe the participants in psychophysiological research?…”

“…An updated review of the claims condemning psychology as “raceless” and “womanless” in the 1980s and 1990s found that while women and racial/ethnic minorities seem to be well‐represented in psychology editorial boards (as of 2007), women are underrepresented among senior authors and racial/ethnic minorities are underrepresented as research participants (Cundiff, 2012). Furthermore, the current culture of peer review reifies this lack of representation, due to disparities in responses to critical reviewer comments and pushes to publish research including non‐WEIRD samples in “special interest” journals (Aly et al, 2022). Do the claims of being “raceless” and “womanless” also describe the participants in psychophysiological research?…”

“…Hence, the impact of this increasingly visible commitment since 2010 warrants investigation, especially given the specific encouragement regarding reporting and analysis of demographic variables. Though the issue of diversity and representation in academia (and specifically SPR) is different from that of representation in scientific research, there is homophily in researcher identities (ethnicity, gender, and affiliation) in the formation of research collaborations (AlShebli et al, 2018), and the manuscripts they review favorably (Aly et al, 2022) and author identity frequently aligns with selected sample population (Avery et al, 2022; Kozlowski et al, 2022). While the mapping of Psychophysiology author identity to research topic and demographics of sample populations is beyond the scope of this article, there is a link between representation among scientists and representation among research participants.…”

“…2012) andAly et al, 2022 that limiting the diversity of authors and editors within a journal limits the theories and subsequent work that the published research inspires, perhaps by increasing the diversity of authors and editors, SPR has done the opposite and inspired more work with diverse samples. Regardless of the mechanism, SPR should continue to support diversity among its member scientists and advocate for comprehensive reporting of sample characteristics.4.1 | Guidance and suggested reporting standardsSection 1.2 introduced the JARS created and distributed by the APA.…”