Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility

Table 1 Risk factors contributing to the emergence of “fishing reviewers”

Criteria	Description	Impact
Pressure to fulfill review commitments	Academic scholars face increasing pressure to fulfill review commitments in a limited time	This pressure may lead to superficial reviews, giving rise to the “fishing reviewer” phenomenon
Inadequate reviewer vetting and selection	Some journals may have less stringent vetting and selection processes for reviewers	Inadequate selection procedures can result in reviewers lacking the necessary expertise or commitment
Reviewer recognition and incentives	The academic community often values the number of reviews completed	This may incentivize quantity over quality in reviews
Lack of reviewer training and guidelines	Insufficient training for reviewers on best practices and ethical conduct	Reviewers may engage in careless or unethical reviewing practices
Inadequate oversight and accountability	Some journals lack robust systems to monitor reviewer actions	Reviewers may engage in unethical practices without appropriate checks and balances
Lack of diversity and inclusivity in peer review	Limited diversity in the reviewer pool	This can lead to an exclusive peer review system and promote “fishing” behavior
Incentives for journal editors	Editors may face pressure to publish a certain number of articles	This may lead to a less discerning selection of reviewers
Reviewer’s country of origin	The country of origin of a reviewer may influence the risk of the “fishing reviewer” phenomenon	Different countries’ cultural, institutional, and individual dynamics may contribute to this risk

Table 2 Integration between the risk factors and their identification criteria

Risk factor	Identification criteria	Description
Pressure to fulfill review commitments	Short turnaround time	Under pressure, reviewers may complete reviews rapidly without in-depth evaluation
Inadequate reviewer vetting and selection	Acceptance of unrelated articles	Lax selection processes lead to reviewers taking on articles outside their expertise
Reviewer recognition and incentives	Non-specific and template-based replies	Emphasis on quantity encourages superficial feedback, often repetitive or lacking depth
Lack of reviewer training and guidelines	Lack of constructive feedback, repetitive, and overused phrases	Untrained reviewers may provide vague feedback and rely on generic phrases
Inadequate oversight and accountability	Inconsistent review results, extreme ratings	Poor oversight allows reviewers to give inconsistent or biased assessments
Lack of diversity and inclusivity in peer review	Bias based on author’s attributes	Limited diversity can lead to reviews biased by demographic or geographic factors
Incentives for journal editors	Consistent acceptance of poor-quality manuscripts	Editorial pressure for high acceptance rates can result in lenient reviews

This table integrates each risk factor with an observable identification criterion, which makes it easier to understand how specific weaknesses in the review system contribute to the emergence of “fishing reviewers”.

Table 3 Criteria for recognizing “fishing reviewers”

Criteria	Description	Indicators
Diverse acceptance of articles	Reviewers accept articles beyond their specialized domain	Regularly accepting unrelated articles
Short turnaround time	The brief duration between review request acceptance and submission	Consistently short review times
Non-specific and template-based replies	Generic, non-specific feedback	Identical phrases across multiple reviews
Lack of constructive feedback	Vague feedback lacking specific suggestions	Primarily critical comments without actionable insights
Bias based on author’s attributes	Decisions are based on the author’s demographic details	Correlation of decisions with author’s demographics
Inconsistent review results	Review outcomes differ substantially from others	Conflicts with evaluations from credible reviewers
Consistently extreme ratings	Extreme ratings for all manuscripts	Regularly providing highest or lowest ratings
Inconsistencies in language proficiency	Inconsistent language proficiency in reviews	Fluctuating levels of language proficiency
Repetitive and overused phrases	Overuse of specific phrases	Identifiable phrases in multiple reviews
Unwillingness to engage in revision discussions	Unwillingness to provide additional feedback	Declining requests for further clarification
Consistent acceptance of poor-quality manuscripts	Regularly accepting substandard manuscripts	Frequently accepting manuscripts with major flaws
Pattern of abrupt rejections	Immediate and outright rejections	Multiple swift rejections without comprehensive assessment
Lack of engagement with related literature	Failing to reference relevant literature	Reviews lacking discussion on related research

Table 4 The different mechanisms to combat “fishing reviewers” with their priority to the journals

Approach	Description	Priority	Justification
Enhance the reviewer vetting and selection process	Implement rigorous vetting procedures to ensure expertise and commitment	High	Preventing unqualified reviewers at the outset can greatly reduce superficial reviews and improve review quality
Establish clear reviewer guidelines and expectations	Provide detailed guidelines and encourage appropriate rejection of review invitations	High	Clear guidelines set standards from the start, leading to more consistent, reliable reviews
Monitor and evaluate reviewer performance	Establish systems to regularly assess and track reviewer performance	High	Directly impacts the identification and management of “fishing reviewers” by creating accountability
Encourage constructive and specific feedback	Encourage reviewers to provide specific, actionable feedback focused on manuscript improvement	High	Specific feedback significantly enhances the quality of peer review and author satisfaction
Strengthen editorial oversight and transparency	Introduce an additional review stage and enhance transparency about review expectations and standards	Medium	Increases accountability and quality control, though it requires some editorial resources
Offer comprehensive reviewer training and resources	Develop training programs to educate reviewers on best practices and ethical standards	Medium	Training reinforces guidelines but may require additional resources
Implement transparent reviewer recognition policies	Recognize reviewers for quality contributions, not just quantity	Medium	Improves reviewer motivation, particularly for high-quality reviews
Address potential bias and discrimination	Implement policies to prevent bias based on author characteristics	Medium	Prevents biases that may compromise the fairness of reviews, ensuring an equitable review process
Promote responsible research evaluation	Advocate for responsible, constructive evaluation practices	Low	Indirectly impacts review quality; helpful but not urgent for managing “fishing reviewers”
Leverage technology and tools	Use artificial intelligence and machine learning tools to analyze review patterns and identify superficial reviewers	Low	Valuable for large journals, but often costly and complex for smaller journals to implement
Foster a culture of academic integrity	Encourage integrity and ethics across the academic community	Low	Benefits long-term review culture but has less immediate impact on preventing “fishing reviewers”
Collaborative efforts and knowledge sharing	Encourage journals, societies, and researchers to share strategies for combating poor review practices	Low	Useful for industry-wide improvements, though it may have a slower impact on individual journals

This prioritization framework helps journals focus on high-impact strategies that directly address quality and accountability in peer review, while also providing medium priority and low priority actions to implement as resources allow. High priority: These actions are foundational to maintaining the quality of peer review and addressing “fishing reviewers”. Implementing these strategies provides immediate and substantial benefits to the peer review process by ensuring reviewers are qualified, accountable, and focused on providing constructive feedback. High-priority actions are recommended for all journals, regardless of size or resources, as they have the greatest direct impact on the quality and credibility of scholarly publishing. Medium priority: These actions enhance the effectiveness and consistency of the review process. While not as critical as high-priority actions, medium-priority strategies further improve reviewer performance and foster a fairer and more ethical review environment. Journals with sufficient resources or editorial capacity should consider these strategies to build upon their foundational practices. Low priority: These strategies contribute to long-term improvements in review culture and process but may require more resources or time to implement. They are often indirect in their impact on reviewer quality, focusing instead on broader cultural shifts, technological investments, or collaborative efforts. Low-priority actions are valuable for journals seeking to make more extensive, sustainable changes once higher-impact measures are in place.

Table 5 Shows practical guidelines for smaller or resource-limited journals to manage “fishing reviewers”

Recommendation	Description	Practical action for smaller journals
Refining reviewer guidelines	Clearly outline expectations for review quality, constructive feedback, and ethics	Develop a basic reviewer handbook emphasizing quality over quantity, accessible to all reviewers
Basic vetting measures	Verify reviewer expertise without advanced vetting tools	Request a curriculum vitae or relevant publications from reviewers to confirm expertise in the subject area
Utilizing author feedback for assessment	Use author feedback to assess reviewer performance and identify “fishing reviewers”	Include a simple author feedback form on the quality and relevance of the review to identify recurring superficial reviews
Prioritizing high-impact, actionable steps	Focus on measures that significantly impact review quality with minimal resources	Conduct spot checks on some reviews and offer brief reviewer training sessions to reinforce good practices
Encouraging constructive reviewer feedback	Guide reviewers on delivering specific and actionable feedback	Share high-quality and poor feedback examples with reviewers to clarify expectations for thorough reviews

This table format helps smaller journals quickly identify feasible actions they can implement without advanced technology or significant financial investment, ensuring a more manageable approach to improving peer review quality.