{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,2]],"date-time":"2025-10-02T00:42:19Z","timestamp":1759365739030,"version":"build-2065373602"},"reference-count":40,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]],"date-time":"2025-10-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1759276800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["www.mdpi.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Publications"],"abstract":"<jats:p>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.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/publications13040048","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]],"date-time":"2025-10-01T09:37:21Z","timestamp":1759311441000},"page":"48","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Beyond the Review: The Editorial Duty to Uphold Professional Conduct"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"13","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1870-6098","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Stephen A.","family":"Bustin","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical Technology Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford CM1 1SQ, UK"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"322","DOI":"10.1038\/s41467-018-08250-2","article-title":"The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals","volume":"10","author":"Bravo","year":"2019","journal-title":"Nature Communications"},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., and Boutron, I. (2016). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 14, (1).","DOI":"10.1186\/s12916-016-0631-5"},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tree.2007.07.008","article-title":"Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors","volume":"23","author":"Budden","year":"2008","journal-title":"Trends in Ecology & Evolution"},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Callaham, M. L., and Tercier, J. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine, 4, (1).","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pmed.0040040"},{"key":"ref_5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.1080\/17449642.2014.913341","article-title":"The problem of humiliation in peer review","volume":"9","author":"Comer","year":"2014","journal-title":"Ethics and Education"},{"key":"ref_6","unstructured":"COPE (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, COPE. (Version 2)."},{"key":"ref_7","unstructured":"CSE (2025, August 15). 2.3 Reviewer roles and responsibilities, Available online: https:\/\/cse.memberclicks.net\/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities."},{"key":"ref_8","first-page":"721","article-title":"Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process","volume":"101","author":"Dergaa","year":"2023","journal-title":"La Tunisie Medicale"},{"key":"ref_9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e92","DOI":"10.3346\/jkms.2025.40.e92","article-title":"Artificial intelligence in peer review: Enhancing efficiency while preserving integrity","volume":"40","author":"Doskaliuk","year":"2025","journal-title":"Journal of Korean Medical Science"},{"key":"ref_10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"12054","DOI":"10.3389\/bjbs.2024.12054","article-title":"The peer review process: Past, present, and future","volume":"81","author":"Drozdz","year":"2024","journal-title":"British Journal of Biomedical Science"},{"key":"ref_11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e64910","DOI":"10.7554\/eLife.64910","article-title":"Implementing a \u201cpublish, then review\u201d model of publishing","volume":"9","author":"Eisen","year":"2020","journal-title":"Elife"},{"key":"ref_12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e019903","DOI":"10.1161\/JAHA.120.019903","article-title":"Effects of experimental interventions to improve the biomedical peer-review process: A systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"10","author":"Gaudino","year":"2021","journal-title":"Journal of the American Heart Association"},{"key":"ref_13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1186\/s41073-020-00096-x","article-title":"Quantifying professionalism in peer review","volume":"5","author":"Gerwing","year":"2020","journal-title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review"},{"key":"ref_14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e62529","DOI":"10.7554\/eLife.62529","article-title":"Journal policies and editors\u2019 opinions on peer review","volume":"9","author":"Hamilton","year":"2020","journal-title":"Elife"},{"key":"ref_15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"8","DOI":"10.1186\/s41073-018-0051-5","article-title":"The changing forms and expectations of peer review","volume":"3","author":"Horbach","year":"2018","journal-title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review"},{"key":"ref_16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"100867","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jeap.2020.100867","article-title":"\u201cThis work is antithetical to the spirit of research\u201d: An anatomy of harsh peer reviews","volume":"46","author":"Hyland","year":"2020","journal-title":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes"},{"key":"ref_17","unstructured":"ICMJE (2025, August 15). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals, Available online: https:\/\/www.icmje.org\/icmje-recommendations.pdf."},{"key":"ref_18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cpm.2023.07.009","article-title":"The peer review system: A journal editor\u2019s 30-year perspective","volume":"41","author":"Joseph","year":"2024","journal-title":"Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery"},{"key":"ref_19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2054","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacc.2023.08.056","article-title":"Challenges and controversies in peer review: JACC review topic of the week","volume":"82","author":"Kusumoto","year":"2023","journal-title":"Journal of the American College of Cardiology"},{"key":"ref_20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"162","DOI":"10.1080\/08989621.2020.1815010","article-title":"Dealing with inappropriate-, low-quality-, and other forms of challenging peer review, including hostile referees and inflammatory or confusing critiques: Prevention and treatment","volume":"28","author":"Lanier","year":"2021","journal-title":"Accountability in Research"},{"key":"ref_21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.3352\/jeehp.2025.22.4","article-title":"The role of large language models in the peer-review process: Opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors","volume":"22","author":"Lee","year":"2025","journal-title":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions"},{"key":"ref_22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"413","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-020-04504-1","article-title":"The good, the bad and the rude peer-review","volume":"44","author":"Mavrogenis","year":"2020","journal-title":"International Orthopaedics"},{"key":"ref_23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"247","DOI":"10.1177\/10398562241231460","article-title":"An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences","volume":"32","author":"Miller","year":"2024","journal-title":"Australasian Psychiatry"},{"key":"ref_24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Morales-Alarc\u00f3n, C. H., Bodero-Poveda, E., Villa-Y\u00e1nez, H. M., and Bu\u00f1ay-Guis\u00f1an, P. A. (2024). Blockchain and its application in the peer review of scientific works: A systematic review. Publications, 12, (4).","DOI":"10.3390\/publications12040040"},{"key":"ref_25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"515","DOI":"10.1126\/science.370.6516.515","article-title":"Edit reviews without permission? Some journal editors say it\u2019s OK","volume":"370","year":"2020","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"ref_26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"101320","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajogmf.2024.101320","article-title":"Triple-blind peer review in scientific publishing: A systematic review","volume":"6","author":"Polnaszek","year":"2024","journal-title":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM"},{"key":"ref_27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"169","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-015-9625-5","article-title":"Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors","volume":"22","author":"Resnik","year":"2016","journal-title":"Science and Engineering Ethics"},{"key":"ref_28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"588","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.11369.2","article-title":"What is open peer review? A systematic review","volume":"6","year":"2017","journal-title":"F1000Research"},{"key":"ref_29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e8247","DOI":"10.7717\/peerj.8247","article-title":"Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM","volume":"7","author":"Silbiger","year":"2019","journal-title":"PeerJ"},{"key":"ref_30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1087\/20110109","article-title":"The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature","volume":"24","author":"Souder","year":"2011","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"key":"ref_31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"352","DOI":"10.1038\/546352a","article-title":"Publishing: Journals could share peer-review data","volume":"546","author":"Squazzoni","year":"2017","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"ref_32","first-page":"15","article-title":"An examination of hostility in peer feedback","volume":"57","author":"Stachus","year":"2022","journal-title":"Bulletin of Hiroshima Bunkyo University"},{"key":"ref_33","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Strauss, D., Gran-Ruaz, S., Osman, M., Williams, M. T., and Faber, S. C. (2023). Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.","DOI":"10.3389\/fpsyg.2023.1120938"},{"key":"ref_34","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2025). Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review, Naunyn-Schmiedeberg\u2019s Archives of Pharmacology."},{"key":"ref_35","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1151","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.12037.3","article-title":"A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review","volume":"6","author":"Tennant","year":"2017","journal-title":"F1000Research"},{"key":"ref_36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"12708","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1707323114","article-title":"Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review","volume":"114","author":"Tomkins","year":"2017","journal-title":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"},{"key":"ref_37","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"15","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejim.2016.04.014","article-title":"Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process","volume":"31","author":"Vercellini","year":"2016","journal-title":"European Journal of Internal Medicine"},{"key":"ref_38","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"41","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1002","article-title":"Rewarding reviewers\u2013sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained","volume":"29","author":"Warne","year":"2016","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"key":"ref_39","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wicherts, J. M., Kievit, R. A., Bakker, M., and Borsboom, D. (2012). Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6.","DOI":"10.3389\/fncom.2012.00020"},{"key":"ref_40","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1448","DOI":"10.2337\/dc22-2037","article-title":"A road map for peer review of real-world evidence studies on safety and effectiveness of treatments","volume":"46","author":"Winterstein","year":"2023","journal-title":"Diabetes Care"}],"container-title":["Publications"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2304-6775\/13\/4\/48\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]],"date-time":"2025-10-01T10:05:58Z","timestamp":1759313158000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2304-6775\/13\/4\/48"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]},"references-count":40,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12]]}},"alternative-id":["publications13040048"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/publications13040048","relation":{},"ISSN":["2304-6775"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2304-6775","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]}}}