4
In your experience, does the current journal peer review system effectively identify major methodological flaws in submitted papers?
Results
(209 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Neutraluser-118567The papers are getting more and more complicated, with multiple approaches.I could not know everything. I am trying to mention to editors parts, which I am not able to evaluate. Moreover, I don't have time to re-run the analyses or quality controls on images. It should be the responsibility of the journal.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-287804I believe that if academic experts in the fields review a manuscript, they would find methodological flaws.
- Somewhat ineffectiveuser-74194Given the time constraints of most editors and reviewers and the profit motivation of publishers, opportunities for scientific misconduct in publishing are likely increasing. How much faith does the scientific community have in the system when bad actors such as Andrew Wakefield and John Paul Darsee seem to easily get their lies published.
- Very ineffectiveuser-738101Depends almost entirely on the journal/editors.
- Neutraluser-193986Strongly depends on the journal.
- Other [Please explain your response]user-646537It very much depends on who the reviewers are- I have previously received reviewer feedback which basically said "I am not qualified to understand these methods".
- Somewhat effectiveuser-637800In some journal clubs, critique of some of the methods makes you wonder if indeed the peer review was thorough
- Somewhat effectiveuser-948023This is subjective based on the reviewer's expertise.
- Neutraluser-579540It depends on the reviewer
- Somewhat effectiveuser-606148reviewers are likely to identify some types of methodological flaws, but many of the most well-publicized cases have been revealed only by measures not typically taken by reviewers, such as re-analysis of raw data.
- Very ineffectiveuser-426175Some "friendly" authors do not criticize each other. Non-critical reviews have no sense. No one is currently well-informed in such an plethora of literature. The same problem has already been solved in other disciplines. AI tools could help in standardization of modeling, experimenting etc.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-969930This happens positively in subject specific projects
- Somewhat ineffectiveuser-683654Many reviewers do not seem to put in enough time.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-524666I always start with the methods section and if that is not proper note that and go no further
- Somewhat ineffectiveuser-817094
It depends on the experience and criteria of the evaluators
- Somewhat effectiveuser-740158If the knowledgeable reviewers are selected. They identify methodological flaws
- Somewhat effectiveuser-320728It is not the best but is a useful way probably one of the best
- Neutraluser-489806Very few reviewers focus on methodology.
- Other [Please explain your response]user-887652That necessarily varies with discipline and method.
- Somewhat ineffectiveuser-214133Sometimes it is effective, it depends on your luck.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-640046depends on the reviewers and editors
- Somewhat effectiveuser-781308Many times, the reviewers make general comments on formatting and language rather than focusing on methodological rigor. The primary purpose of the peer review should be to critically examine the research's methodology and conformity to standard protocols.
- Very effectiveuser-286232Paid reviews are better as the reviewers are independent, passionate and want to pay back in terms of work rendered timely. They want their life to be more meaningful and less dependent on next generation of children.
- Very ineffectiveuser-774853It relies on understanding, or the lack of it, of the reviewers, but also it assumes what the need for that article is. Most biology journals have a very poor approach to examining mathematical or computational studies; the reviewers are often reluctant to examine and scrutinise these carefully.
- Other [Please explain your response]user-41956I can't say. I am unsure of the number of submissions a particular journal receives. I assume that every editor is pressured to complete each volume with a certain number of pages or a specific number of articles in a timely manner. Moreover, journals with the highest reputations or those with broad scopes often have more assistant editors and face different management issues that impact their peer review process. The reverse will also be true but the problems differ.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-70793Each journal has its panel of experts. When the methodology is in doubt most cases you receive a rejection.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-655754It's still pretty good, considering! But sometimes when so many people turn down reviewing, you get second-rate reviewers or, more likely, too few reviewers. when a paper receives ONE reviewer, it's more likely that something major will be missed.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-186224I see some works with low quality are eventually published, maybe not in a good journal, but any work can be published if the authors are not picky on the journal selections
- Neutraluser-767467Sometimes authors point out flaws within their own research, though once published there is usually no follow up.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-90744I would say, it is completely based on the expertise of the reviewer and domain selected to review
- Somewhat effectiveuser-740731When scientists overcommit to unpaid work, their critical analysis suffers.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-337244Hurry reviewing process burden the reviewer to not check all the methodologies in a proper way or less attentive way. So, providing sufficient time will be beneficial for the imperative reviewing.
- Somewhat effectiveuser-135268This is more at the editor's discretion. If the editor chooses a very experienced reviewer and there is a mediocre manuscript, errors are definitely detected. Many times details that I had overlooked have been detected and the reviewer's comments have increased the value of my manuscript. If the editor has a different point of view, he can choose very different experts for the review. This undoubtedly leads to unexpected results, positive or negative, and to some extent undermines scientific accuracy.
- Somewhat ineffectiveuser-521833I have reviewed papers and wondered the editor wasted my time sending the paper in the first place. Effective screening with subject matter specialist should have rejected the paper at the beginning.
- Very effectiveuser-881641he peer review system can catch major methodological flaws, but it's inconsistent. It works best when reviewers are qualified, have time, and are given the right incentives — but those ideal conditions often aren’t met.
When peer review works well:- Expert reviewers with domain-specific knowledge can spot critical methodological issues — like flawed experimental designs, statistical missteps, or poor controls.
- Specialist journals often have higher standards and more rigorous review processes.
- Journals that use open peer review (where reviews are public) or registered reports (where methods are reviewed before results are known) tend to do a better job of surfacing flaws early.
- Expert reviewers with domain-specific knowledge can spot critical methodological issues — like flawed experimental designs, statistical missteps, or poor controls.
- Very ineffectiveuser-219698Proper scientific constructive review will help for better publications.
- user-441980Honestly, not as much anymore.
The effectiveness of peer review in catching serious methodological issues seems to be declining. With reviewers overburdened and deadlines tight, reviews are often superficial or rushed.A few reasons why:- High submission volumes lead to reviewer fatigue.
- Many reviewers don’t have the time to dig deep into methodology or data analysis.
- Editors may prioritize speed over thoroughness, especially in APC-driven journals.
- Sometimes flawed papers slip through just because it's hard to find enough qualified reviewers on short notice.
As a result, we’re seeing more papers with critical flaws getting published, which undermines trust in the system. - High submission volumes lead to reviewer fatigue.
- Other [Please explain your response]user-683385I couldn't observe enough.
- Somewhat ineffectiveuser-332757I believe that, in general, reviewers tend to overlook methodological aspects.
- Very effectiveuser-82487If you send the ms to a reviewer outside the area of specialization, then the reviewers' comments will be unhelpful or irrelevant
- Very ineffectiveuser-573537This unfortunately happens, despite the wide availability of very well prepared methodological guidelines.
- Very effectiveuser-649468very important to learn
- Somewhat effectiveuser-650721I think peer review suffers from bias swayed by who is writing the paper and identifiers of the authors should be removed for review. Some reviewers do an in depth job, others not so much. Also swayed by the expertise of the reviewer who may or not know the subject area well. But if that is one of the only reviewers to say yes, the journal is stuck with them.