Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study

Background Despite critiques from across academia, (double-) blinded peer review ((D)BPR) is still considered the ‘gold standard’ quality-assurance tool for the publication of academic research. While some journals make use of ‘open’ peer-review (OPR) practices to make elements of academic publishing more transparent, (D)BPR is still used by the majority of academic journals, with anonymity considered the best guarantor of reviewer objectivity. (D)BPR remains a ‘black box’ which conceals diverse and idiosyncratic practices by reviewers, editors and journals. This paper seeks to uncover the impact of such practices on the peer review of interdisciplinary research (IDR). Methods The author first conducted a survey of 164 self-identified interdisciplinary researchers from a range of disciplines at one research-intensive UK university to identify barriers to and enablers of high-quality peer review for IDR papers. This quantitative/qualitative survey is supplemented by interviews with authors, editors and reviewers from across biological and medical sciences (BMS), physical sciences and engineering (PSE) and social sciences and humanities (SSH). Results Authors of IDR papers reported experiencing disadvantage as a result of (D)BPR practices, including perceived bias against IDR by mono-disciplinary reviewers and the assignment of unsuitable reviewers. Reviewers reported being assigned papers to review that were not within their field of expertise, and insufficient editorial guidance on review processes for IDR papers. Editors reported that the ‘reviewer crisis’ has further complicated the already challenging process of seeking peer review for IDR. In interviews, reviewers shared strategies to overcome weaknesses in the (D)BPR of IDR. These included confidence reporting where the reviewer did not feel able to comment on the paper holistically, and seeking advice from colleagues to enhance their review. Practices were employed with varying degrees of formality, and in some cases undermined the stated goals of (D)BPR. Conclusions Considering the apparent prevalence of these practices and their possible implications, the paper proposes a framework for interdisciplinary peer review informed by existing OPR practices that formalises and incorporates existing strategies used by reviewers and editors to enhance the peer review of IDR papers.