Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter


  • Kelly-Ann Allen Monash University, Australia
  • Jonathan Reardon Durham University, United Kingdom
  • Yumin Lu University of Melbourne, Australia
  • David V Smith Temple University, United States of America
  • Emily Rainsford Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  • Lucas Walsh Monash University, Australia


Peer review, publishing, academia, publishers, journals


Peer review is an essential part of academic publishing, yet many authors, reviewers, and editors have reportedly encountered problems with the review process. Some scholars view peer-review as a necessary process for the advancement of science, while other scholars argue that for many publishers and journals, both authors and reviewers are being exploited. The aim of this commentary is two-fold. First, to provide a narrative review of current perspectives and available research on the peer-review process to date, and second, to summarise potential solutions elicited from scholars on Twitter. A review of the literature identified several problems with peer-review including publication delays, an over reliance on a narrow pool of reviewers, threats to anonymity, perceived exploitation, as well as overworked editors. Recommendations to redress these issues that emerged from scholars on Twitter suggested publishers, journals, their editors and associate editors, universities, individual academics and their communities all have a role to play towards creating an equitable and fair system. This commentary aims to ignite conversations about improving the peer-review process.


Download data is not yet available.







How to Cite

Towards improving peer review: Crowd-sourced insights from Twitter. (2022). Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(3).

Most read articles by the same author(s)