Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility

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”.