Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility

Abstract

The rise of the “fishing reviewer” phenomenon presents a significant threat to the integrity of academic publishing, undermining the credibility of the peer review process and eroding trust in scientific journals. This editorial explores the risk factors contributing to this troubling trend and identifies key indicators to recognize such reviewers. To address this issue, we propose strategies, including enhanced reviewer vetting, comprehensive training, and transparent recognition policies to foster a culture of accountability and ethical conduct in scholarly review. By implementing these measures, we can safeguard the quality and credibility of academic research.

Key Words: Fishing reviewer; Scientific publication; Academic research; Scholarly community; Scientific journal; Editor

Core Tip: “Fishing reviewers” conduct superficial peer reviews to gain recognition without providing meaningful feedback. This practice undermines the integrity of academic publishing by allowing substandard research to pass through the review process. Recognizing and addressing this issue is crucial for maintaining the credibility of scholarly communication. By implementing targeted strategies to identify and combat “fishing reviewers”, we can preserve the quality and reliability of scientific journals.

INTRODUCTION

This article aims to spotlight a growing concern in academic publishing - the emergence of “fishing reviewers”. These individuals engage in superficial peer reviews, offering little to no constructive feedback while seeking recognition for their efforts. The integrity and credibility of scientific research rely heavily on the peer review process, designed to ensure the validity, reliability, and overall merit of scholarly work[1]. The review process serves as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring the quality and validity of research before publication, promoting intellectual rigor, and fostering scholarly growth[2]. However, the rise of “fishing reviewers” threatens this essential system, potentially allowing substandard research to be published and eroding trust in academic journals. In this article, I will explore the risk factors contributing to this phenomenon, outline criteria for identifying such reviewers, and propose practical strategies to combat this issue. By addressing these challenges, we can safeguard the quality and credibility of scholarly communication, ensuring that the peer review process continues to serve as a pillar of academic integrity.

WHO IS THE “FISHING REVIEWER”?

I metaphorically use the term‎ “fishing reviewers” to refer to reviewers who engage in a superficial review process devoid of genuine benefit to the authors or the journal editors. Pursuing recognition and appreciation drives them to accept the responsibility of reviewing an article merely to attain recognition and accolades for their efforts. Such actions ultimately undermine the credibility of the review process and harm the scholarly community, seriously threatening the integrity and efficacy of this critical evaluation process[3]. Their reviews lack substance, depth, and meaningful insights, rendering them inconsequential to the authors and the journal editors. This unethical practice not only sabotages the essence of scholarly review but also tarnishes the reputation of the journal and the academic community’s reputation[4]. To underscore its unique impact, we should differentiate “fishing reviewers” from other unethical behaviors, like predatory or neglectful reviewing. Specifically, ‘fishing reviewers’ will be characterized by pursuing personal gain through superficial engagement in the review process without meaningful contribution, in contrast to neglectful reviewers who may lack adequate time or engagement for thorough reviews. It is essential to weed out these “fishing reviewers” and preserve the integrity of the review process for the benefit of the scientific and academic communities.

RISK FACTORS AND IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA

The emergence of the “fishing reviewer” phenomenon can be attributed to various risk factors within the academic and publishing landscapes. Understanding these factors is crucial for devising effective strategies to mitigate this concerning trend. To address the primary risk factors contributing to the rise of “fishing reviewers”, comprehensive reviewer training, stringent selection processes, clearer guidelines, and enhanced oversight mechanisms can be implemented[5]. This will significantly reduce the prevalence of “fishing reviewers” and promote a more robust and reliable peer review system. I suggest specific criteria to identify potential “fishing reviewers”.

Risk factors

The risk factors include: (1) Pressure to fulfill review commitments: Increasing pressure on scholars to meet the review’s deadlines can lead to hasty, superficial reviews; (2) Inadequate reviewer vetting and selection: Lax selection processes may allow unqualified or unethical reviewers to participate; (3) Reviewer recognition and incentives: Emphasis on quantity over quality of reviews can incentivize superficial reviewing; (4) Lack of reviewer training and guidelines: Insufficient training on ethical reviewing practices; (5) Inadequate oversight and accountability: Poor monitoring of reviewer actions can enable unethical practices; (6) Lack of diversity and inclusivity in peer review: Limited diversity in reviewer pools can lead to exclusive and biased reviewing; and (7) Incentives for journal editors: Pressure on editors to maintain high acceptance rates may compromise review quality (Table 1)[6-8].

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

Identification criteria: Indicators for recognizing “fishing reviewers”

Indicators for identifying “fishing reviewers” include the following: (1) Diverse acceptance of articles: Reviewers accept articles outside their expertise regularly; (2) Short turnaround time: Extremely quick reviews indicating superficial assessment; (3) Non-specific and template-based replies: Use of generic feedback across multiple reviews; (4) Lack of constructive feedback: Providing vague, non-constructive feedback; (5) Bias based on author’s attributes: Decisions influenced by the author’s demographics; (6) Inconsistent review results: Reviews that significantly deviate from those of credible reviewers; (7) Consistently extreme ratings: Extreme ratings without nuanced consideration; (8) Inconsistencies in language proficiency: Fluctuating language quality in reviews; (9) Repetitive and overused phrases: Identical phrases across multiple reviews; (10) Unwillingness to engage in revision discussions: Refusal to provide further feedback during revisions; (11) Consistent acceptance of poor-quality manuscripts: Accepting substandard manuscripts without thorough critique; (12) Pattern of abrupt rejections: Immediate rejections without substantial review; and (13) Lack of engagement with related literature: Reviews that do not reference relevant literature (Tables 2 and 3)[2,9-12].

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”.

Table 3 Criteria for recognizing “fishing reviewers”.

Criteria	Description	Indicators
Diverse acceptance of articles	Reviewers accept articles beyond their specialized domain	Regularly accepting unrelated articles
Short turnaround time	The brief duration between review request acceptance and submission	Consistently short review times
Non-specific and template-based replies	Generic, non-specific feedback	Identical phrases across multiple reviews
Lack of constructive feedback	Vague feedback lacking specific suggestions	Primarily critical comments without actionable insights
Bias based on author’s attributes	Decisions are based on the author’s demographic details	Correlation of decisions with author’s demographics
Inconsistent review results	Review outcomes differ substantially from others	Conflicts with evaluations from credible reviewers
Consistently extreme ratings	Extreme ratings for all manuscripts	Regularly providing highest or lowest ratings
Inconsistencies in language proficiency	Inconsistent language proficiency in reviews	Fluctuating levels of language proficiency
Repetitive and overused phrases	Overuse of specific phrases	Identifiable phrases in multiple reviews
Unwillingness to engage in revision discussions	Unwillingness to provide additional feedback	Declining requests for further clarification
Consistent acceptance of poor-quality manuscripts	Regularly accepting substandard manuscripts	Frequently accepting manuscripts with major flaws
Pattern of abrupt rejections	Immediate and outright rejections	Multiple swift rejections without comprehensive assessment
Lack of engagement with related literature	Failing to reference relevant literature	Reviews lacking discussion on related research

SHORT AND LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF FISHING REVIEW

The persistence of “fishing reviewers” has immediate and short-term consequences in addition to profound long-term effects on the academic community and weakens the integrity of scholarly communication. Both effects should be considered by editors and as well as the academic community. In the short term, the superficial reviews provided by “fishing reviewers” directly impact journal credibility. When reviewers fail to conduct in-depth evaluations, publishing lower-quality articles becomes more likely, tarnishing the journal’s reputation among researchers and readers[13]. This immediate decline in quality also undermines peer review’s core purpose, turning it from a rigorous quality control mechanism into a mere procedural formality. As a result, authors may become disillusioned and frustrated with the review process, particularly when they receive vague, non-specific feedback. This frustration can lead to reluctance among reputable authors to submit to journals where rigorous review standards are not upheld, potentially prompting them to explore alternative publication avenues outside of traditional academic channels[14]. Over the long term, the unchecked influence of “fishing reviewers” can erode scholarly trust, vital to the entire academic ecosystem. If high standards are not consistently maintained, researchers and the public may begin to doubt the validity of published research, weakening the foundation of academic discourse[15]. This lack of trust can lead to a proliferation of incorrect or unverified information, as flawed studies published due to inadequate peer review may form the basis for further research. This cumulative effect is particularly damaging in fields with progressive, cumulative research models, where subsequent studies build on previous findings[16]. Reversing these errors becomes challenging and resource-intensive, risking setbacks in advancing scientific knowledge.

In addition to trust erosion and misinformation, “fishing reviewers” also contribute to declining academic standards and journal impact. Journals that fail to monitor and control superficial reviews may experience a gradual decrease in rigor, potentially diminishing their impact factor, reputation, and readership. This, in turn, makes it difficult for journals to attract submissions from high-caliber authors and reviewers, creating a cycle that lowers academic quality across the field[17]. The consequences extend further to affect early-career researchers, who rely heavily on constructive peer review for skill development. Without thorough feedback, these authors miss valuable opportunities to refine their methodologies and critical thinking, resulting in knowledge gaps and hindering the scholarly growth essential for advancing the field[18]. Moreover, “fishing reviewers” effects are not uniformly distributed across disciplines and regions. Fast-paced fields like computer science and engineering, which often emphasize rapid publication, may be particularly vulnerable due to the pressure for quick reviews[19]. Similarly, regions with limited access to expert reviewers or lacking robust training for reviewers may be disproportionately affected, potentially amplifying disparities in research quality and reliability between global academic communities[20]. Recognizing and addressing both the short - and long-term impacts of “fishing reviewers” is thus critical. Proactive measures - such as rigorous reviewer vetting, clear guidelines, and active monitoring - are essential for preserving the integrity of academic publishing and fostering a resilient, trusted, and progressive scholarly ecosystem.

ADDRESSING THE “FISHING REVIEWER” ISSUE

The “fishing reviewer” phenomenon poses a significant threat to the integrity and reliability of the peer review process, a cornerstone of academic publishing. By understanding the risk factors and implementing targeted strategies to identify and mitigate this issue, we can uphold the standards of scholarly communication. Combatting the “fishing reviewer” issue requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes and encourages a more reliable and trustworthy peer review process. To achieve this, it’s crucial to implement proactive measures at the editorial level[21-23]. Below are specific actions that can be implemented at the editorial level (Table 4).

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.

Enhance reviewer vetting and selection process

Implement rigorous vetting procedures to ensure reviewers have the appropriate expertise and experience in the specific research area[2]. For example: Journals might require reviewers to submit a recent curriculum vitae and a list of relevant publications to verify their qualifications. Additionally, potential reviewers could be asked to complete a brief assessment or provide references from previous review experiences to confirm their expertise.

Establish clear reviewer guidelines and expectations

Provide detailed guidelines outlining expectations for review quality, thoroughness, and ethical conduct[24]. For example: Develop a comprehensive reviewer handbook that covers best practices for providing constructive feedback, the importance of ethical behavior, and the consequences of failing to meet the required standards. This handbook could be supplemented with periodic training sessions or webinars to reinforce these guidelines.

Offer comprehensive reviewer training and resources

Develop training programs to educate reviewers on best practices, ethical conduct, and the peer review process[25]. For example: Create an online training module that new reviewers must complete before participating in the review process. This module could include interactive case studies illustrating common pitfalls in reviewing and how to avoid them. Additionally, journals could offer regular refresher courses to keep reviewers updated on evolving standards and practices.

Implement transparent reviewer recognition policies

Define clear and transparent policies for recognizing reviewers, focusing on the quality and depth of their reviews rather than the quantity[26]. For example: Instead of merely acknowledging the number of reviews completed, journals could highlight reviewers who provide particularly insightful and constructive feedback. This recognition could take the form of awards, certificates, or public acknowledgments on the journal’s website or in its annual report.

Monitor and evaluate reviewer performance

Establish a system to monitor reviewer performance and adherence to guidelines, identifying potential “fishing reviewers” through regular assessments[27]. For example: Journals could introduce a peer feedback system where editors and authors rate the quality of the reviews they receive. These ratings could be tracked over time to identify patterns indicative of “fishing reviewers”, such as consistently low scores or generic feedback.

Encourage constructive and specific feedback

Encourage reviewers to provide detailed and constructive feedback to authors, focusing on the manuscript’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement[28]. For example: Journals could provide examples of well-constructed reviews as part of the training materials, highlighting the difference between vague criticism and specific, actionable suggestions. Reviewers could also be encouraged to cite relevant literature when making recommendations, thereby strengthening their feedback.

Address potential bias and discrimination

Implement policies to prevent reviewer bias based on author characteristics such as nationality, race, or institutional affiliation[29]. For example: Adopt double-blind review practices, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This approach can help minimize bias and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit.

Strengthen editorial oversight and transparency

Enhance editorial oversight by introducing an additional review stage where editors critically evaluate the quality and appropriateness of reviews[30]. For example: Editors could conduct random audits of completed reviews, assessing them for thoroughness, relevance, and adherence to the journal’s standards. If issues are identified, editors could provide feedback to the reviewer and offer additional training or guidance.

Promote responsible research evaluation

Advocate for responsible research evaluation practices, emphasizing the importance of unbiased, constructive reviews[31]. For example: Journals could adopt the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment principles, which call for a more balanced approach to evaluating research, considering not just publication metrics but also the quality of peer reviews and the contribution to scientific knowledge.

Leverage technology and tools

Explore the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools to identify potential “fishing reviewers” based on review patterns and behaviors[32]. For example: Develop algorithms that analyze review length, depth, and consistency across different manuscripts to detect patterns indicative of superficial or template-based reviews. Such tools could flag potential “fishing reviewers” for further human evaluation.

Foster a culture of academic integrity

Cultivate a culture within the academic community that values integrity, transparency, and ethical behavior in all scholarly activities, including the peer review process[33]. For example: Academic institutions and societies could organize workshops and panel discussions on the ethics of peer review, encouraging open dialogue about reviewers’ responsibilities and the impact of unethical practices.

Collaborative efforts and knowledge sharing

Encourage collaboration between journals, publishers, academic societies, and researchers to share best practices, experiences, and strategies to combat the “fishing reviewer” phenomenon[34]. For example: Journals could partner with academic societies to host webinars on improving the peer review system. These events could feature experienced reviewers and editors who share insights and advice. They could also be recorded and made available as resources for future training. Our recommendations aim to foster a culture of accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct among reviewers and editors alike. However, some of these recommendations may not apply to resource-limited journals. Table 5 suggests some recommendations for these journals to help fight fishing reviewer syndrome.

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.

CONCLUSION

The rise of “fishing reviewer” incidents posed a significant threat to the credibility and dependability of the peer review system, a fundamental aspect of academic publishing. By identifying the risk factors and employing specific strategies to recognize and address this problem, we can maintain the integrity of scholarly communication. This collective effort will ensure that academic research continues to be evaluated rigorously and ethically, upholding the standards of scholarly communication.