MARATTO

article · Journal of Scholarly Publishing

They Rejected My Paper: Why?

20241 citationOsun State University

Abstract

This article critically examines biases in the peer review process, essential for maintaining academic scholarship’s integrity. Despite its pivotal role, the peer review system is susceptible to various biases, including gender, institutional, confirmation, publication, and reviewer biases. These biases can undermine the objectivity and fairness of the academic publishing process, skewing the representation of research and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Through a comprehensive literature review, the study explores these biases’ implications on the credibility of individual studies and the broader scientific discourse. The article proposes several solutions to address these issues, including adopting double-blind reviews, diversifying reviewer pools, enhancing transparency in editorial decisions, and promoting ethical standards in peer review. While recognizing the difficulty of completely eliminating biases, the paper emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to minimize their impact, striving for a more equitable, transparent, and rigorous scholarly ecosystem.

Research topics

  • scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Academic Publishing and Open Access

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.3138/jsp-2024-0023

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.