Editorial - The problematic nature of peer review: Considering Andy Warhol's shoe, academic cheats and the sh*t sandwich

Abstract

Content and FocusThis editorial follows on from a previous editorial which focused upon ‘Writing for Publication’ in 2011. The purpose is to focus down a little further and to describe and discuss the peer review process within the world of academic publishing. This system has become a hallmark of quality and holds a great deal of sway when deciding what research gets published or commissioned. It is, however, problematic in numerous ways and consumers of research need to be mindful of the limitations of such a system (i.e. it can be abused and misused). Some of these limitations are considered before suggesting three ways in which peer review can potentially be utilised in a more productive manner. In turn these are: 1. The provision of proactive guidance from the publication editors based upon the reviewers’ judgement; 2. The provision of clear guidance for peer reviewers regarding the expectations of papers published in the related journal; and 3. The consideration of utilising alternative peer review systems to the norm (e.g. open review or open published dialogues with reviews). Following on from this, the papers presented within this particular edition of Counselling Psychology Review are briefly introduced and a call for peer reviewers is made.