Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility

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.