Beyond structural fixes: Expectations of Chinese academics for structural and interactional reform in peer review

Peer review is the central mechanism through which academic publishing ensures manuscript quality, yet it continues to face criticism for inefficiency, limited effectiveness, and various biases. Although many reform strategies have been proposed, they mostly focus on structural adjustments or on interventions targeting the roles of authors, reviewers, and editors, leaving researchers’ perspectives insufficiently explored. To address this gap, this study adopts an integrated institutional lens and conducts qualitative interviews with 41 Chinese academics to examine their expectations for improving peer review in international journals. The findings show that researchers generally expect stronger feedback mechanisms, greater procedural fairness, higher review quality, wider reuse of review reports, and responsible use of artificial intelligence. At the same time, they experience tensions related to unclear responsibility boundaries between reviewers and editors, conflicting demands among different stakeholders, inconsistent standards for reviewing responsibilities, and contradictions in reward and sanction practices. These tensions are closely shaped and intensified by broader scientific environments beyond peer review. By foregrounding researchers’ perceptions and experiences, the study offers evidence-based insights for developing more grounded and context-sensitive peer review reform strategies.