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