Peer review is supposed to make science better.
A manuscript is submitted.
Experts examine the methods, results and interpretation.
They identify weaknesses the authors may have missed.
The editor considers their recommendations.
The paper is revised — or rejected.
It sounds like a system designed to protect scientific quality.
And, in many cases, it does.
But peer review is still a human process.
And humans bring judgement, expectations, expertise and conflicts of interest into the room.
So an uncomfortable question is worth asking:
Can peer review be rigorous and still be unfair?
Consider a few situations.
A reviewer asks for an additional analysis.
Is it genuinely necessary to answer an important methodological question?
Or is it simply the analysis they would have chosen?
A reviewer challenges the interpretation.
That may reveal a real problem.
But what if the reviewer expects a different conclusion because they disagree with the study’s theoretical framework?
A reviewer recognises the research group.
Does that knowledge influence their judgement?
Or perhaps the reviewer works in the same field and has a competing project.
Could that create a conflict?
These situations do not automatically mean misconduct or bad faith.
Disagreement is a normal part of science.
In fact, a strong review should challenge researchers.
But there is a difference between critical review and allowing personal interests or assumptions to shape the evaluation.
The ICMJE recommends that reviewers disclose relationships or activities that could bias their assessment and recuse themselves when a conflict exists. Reviewers are also expected to keep manuscripts confidential and must not use or appropriate authors’ ideas before publication.
And there is another important point:
The reviewer does not decide whether the paper is published.
The editor is ultimately responsible for the journal’s content and may reject or accept a manuscript regardless of an individual reviewer’s recommendation. Editorial decisions can also depend on factors such as the journal’s scope and suitability, not simply whether the reviewer liked the paper.
So what should researchers do when a review feels unreasonable?