Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility

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.