ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite critiques from across academia, double-anonymised peer review is still considered the 'gold standard' quality-assurance tool for the publication of academic research. While some journals make use of 'open' peer-review practices to make elements of academic publishing more transparent, anonymised is still used by the majority of academic journals, with anonymity considered the best guarantor of reviewer objectivity. Anonymised peer review 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.
methodsThe 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 interdisciplinary papers. This quantitative/qualitative survey was supplemented by interviews with authors, editors and reviewers from across biological and medical sciences, physical sciences and engineering and social sciences and humanities.
resultsAuthors of interdisciplinary research papers reported experiencing disadvantage in peer review practices, including perceived bias against interdisciplinary research 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 interdisciplinary papers. Editors reported that the 'reviewer crisis' has further complicated the already challenging process of seeking peer review for interdisciplinary research. In interviews, reviewers shared strategies to overcome weaknesses in the review process for interdisciplinary papers. These included confidence reporting where the reviewer did not feel able to comment on all aspects of the paper, 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 anonymised peer review.
conclusionsConsidering the possible implications of the informal strategies employed by peer reviewers, the paper proposes a framework for interdisciplinary peer review informed by existing open peer review practices that formalises and incorporates existing strategies used by reviewers and editors to enhance the peer review of interdisciplinary research papers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.