Peer reviewers in academia are bound by professional ethics. They do need to abide by the double-blind (and rarely single-blind) pre-requisites. In a double-blind context, neither the author(s) nor the peer reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. While this is common practice to try to create fairness and to improve the quality of the peer review, at least one randomized controlled trial has found that blinding does not show any apparent difference in the identification of errors in the submitted papers, and blinding was even found to have raised the acceptance rates (than in a single-blind condition where the reviewers were aware of author identities) (Godlee, Gate, & Martyn, 1998).


This is to create a context where the works are judged on their own merits without the influence of knowing others’ identities.

In a single-blind peer review context, because of a given situation, the peer reviewers know who the authors are. This may happen because the proposed draft is part of a well-known sequence of research or writings. Just because a single-blind situation occurs does not mean that the peer reviewers are at any greater liberty for sharing that information.


Other factors related to peer reviewer ethics involves the following points. Peer reviewers should not misrepresent their backgrounds or education or capabilities. There should not be any other use of the works than to offer the peer review. No works may be leaked. No insights garnered from the works may be applied in any other context. All information should be closely held. No ideas should be skimmed. If identities are somehow known (such as based on highly specialized areas of research, writing “tells” or “signatures,” or stylometry), there should be no change in the standards applied.

In a controlled study, Mahoney (1977) found compelling evidence of mass confirmatory bias among peer reviewers, who rated a study positively or negatively based on the results of the study (even though the methodology was the same for all the submitted papers) and whether the results aligned with their theoretical perspective.  Analyses of various published works assessing editorial peer review processes suggest that such research has not been rigorous, and the findings are generally non-conclusive; further, the authors suggest that the scientific community would do well to rally around ensuring that editorial peer review is assessed accurately and improved (Jefferson, Wager, & Davidoff, 2002). Smith (2006) argues that peer review is deeply flawed as a process but is the “least worst” option in science even though its many flaws are well known, its slowness and expense, its inconsistency, human bias, and abuses.

Compromises to the Academic Peer Review Process: There are ways that people have compromised the academic peer review process. One type of dishonesty involves automatic acceptance of chapters or articles by going through the paces of peer review only. In situations where editors and authors have prior relationships and a quid pro quo going on, that can lead to corrupted practices as well. For some, the corner-cutting is easier than vetting the work through a number of reviewers. Any compromise of the professional standards really does no one any favors. Having a rigorous, transparent, fair, and courteous process may help head off feuds and disgruntlement. The sense of procedural process is critical to enable the process to work with the least friction possible. Given how much personal investment people put into their research and writing, it can be hard not to take constructively critical feedback personally.

No work that is under review should be leaked or seen by others outside the peer review “chain of custody”. (Some reviews are done within editing systems, so some works are never downloaded into the wild. For other systems, downloads are possible and often desirable, so line-by-line annotations may be made. Still others use email systems, which are fundamentally unsafe.) Reviewer discretion should generally be ironclad.

Some Benefits / Rewards of Reviewing for Reviewers:   Peer review work is usually an unpaid aspect of academic work. Some professionals have made a lifelong career of reviewing peers' works along with their other responsibilities. There are a number of benefits to peer reviewing. First, this work helps keep the reviewer’s research and writing assessment skills honed. This helps keep reviewers fresh in terms of domain field standards. Second, this work gives reviewers access to some of the more cutting-edge research and information pre-publication. Third, review work enables the building of collegial relationships across various domain fields. Fourth, this work often entails invitations to publish.

Comment on this page