Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Trust, Transparency, and Accountability in Scholarly Publishing: Reflections from a Regional Perspective
Editorial and peer review processes (systemic/structural) are critical to the academic publishing ecosystem and establish a foundation in which authors rely upon editors for a fair review of their work; reviewers expect their reviews to be used reasonably and ethically; and readers expect that all published research has been subjected to formally declared peer review and ethical scrutiny.
Trust has recently become a growing concern in academic publishing due to a perceived lack of accountability and transparency within editorial and peer review systems. Authors and reviewers rely on confidence, built through experience, in being able to trust their respective publishers to implement fair and open editorial and review processes. Guidance from international best-practice bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) highlights the central role of transparency and accountability in maintaining this trust.
In Asia and the Middle East, structural, cultural, and resource-based challenges often exert a greater impact than in many other regions when it comes to accountability and transparency in editorial and peer review processes. We hope that, through global scholarly publishing discussions and platforms such as Editors’ Café and regional scholarly communities, these issues will receive increased focus and sustained attention.
Where Trust Is Built and Where It Fractures
The purpose of peer review is to create an impartial, confidential, and meritocratic review process. However, there will be many points in the peer review process where trust has been broken. In many cases, trust can be broken between the reviewer and the author. Some of the things that lead to a lack of trust are a lack of transparency in how editors make editorial decisions, imprecise ways of defining how reviewers will be selected, and a lack of consistent communication between the editor and author. Some authors receive short rejection letters that do not provide sufficient justification, whereas other authors receive lengthy periods for review with no communication from the editors. Even when these types of activity are unintentional, they result in decreased confidence in the peer review system.
For early career researchers and scholars, especially those from developing countries, the lack of transparency in the peer review process can be especially discouraging. When editors do not clearly communicate their standards for editorial decisions, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between a legitimate scientific criticism of work and an inherent bias against the authors.
Accountability Gaps in Editorial and Review Workflows
Accountability is often weakened through the diffusion of responsibility. Editors may rely heavily on individual reviewers, sometimes with limited oversight. Persistent issues such as review delays, superficial evaluations, or unconstructive feedback may go unaddressed, contributing to reduced confidence in the review process itself. At the same time, institutional or publisher-level pressure to increase output or performance metrics can inadvertently devalue review quality.
Concerns also persist regarding accountability in the declaration and management of conflicts of interest. Although many journals require disclosure, enforcement and verification of such disclosures remain uneven across regions. International frameworks, including COPE Core Practices, provide useful reference points, but consistent implementation remains a challenge.
Transparency as a Practical, Not Abstract, Solution
Transparency should not be viewed as an idea or concept, but should be considered an important aspect of the editorial process. Providing clear reviewer criteria, a clear editorial policy, and a clear line of communication between editors and authors will increase trust in the editorial process. Simple actions such as explaining the reasons behind an editorial decision or creating a structure for the review process will improve the perception of fairness in the editorial review process.
From the perspective of regions, transparency can also include recognizing regional differences. Such regional factors include language difficulties, lack of access to mentoring in academic writing, and the author's level of exposure to internationally accepted practices regarding publishing. Providing clear guidance regarding transparency will help to create a more equitable playing field for authors throughout the world.
Concrete Steps Toward Improvement
Actions that can help improve integrity and fairness in scholarly publishing include:
- Enhancing the clearer definition of roles and responsibilities of editors, and increasing their accountability;
- Recognizing quality reviews and providing reasonable timelines to reviewers to encourage responsibility as a reviewer;
- Improving the transparency of how decisions are made in the peer review process and the criteria used in peer review;
- Encouraging the inclusion of regional voices on editorial boards so that those views are taken into consideration and a better understanding of the context of the published article;
- Investing in education on publication ethics for all authors, reviewers, and editors.
The Role of Ambassadors and Regional Communities
As ambassadors for ACSE, we occupy a special role in connecting international standards to local contexts. Through collaboration with ambassadors from all regions, providing feedback, and developing appropriate and relevant responses and resources, we aim to improve the quality and transparency of scholarly communication and the creation of a fair, trustworthy environment for scholarly communications.
Restoration of trust cannot be accomplished by issuing mere statements about policy on trust; it takes time to build trust with consistent, transparent, and accountable behavior. Strengthening these concepts will require collaboration, open discussion, and the willingness to reflect critically upon the current systems of scholarly publishing.
Scholarly publishing can only achieve its true objective, advancing knowledge with integrity and fairness once this has occurred.
Keywords
Scholarly publishing Peer review Editorial transparency Accountability Research integrity Regional perspectives Publication ethics
Dr. Nasrin Ghassemi Barghi is an Assistant Professor at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. She holds a Postdoctoral degree in Toxicology and Pharmacology from Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Her academic and research expertise spans toxicology, pharmacology, and biomedical sciences, with a particular focus on research ethics, scholarly communication, and responsible publishing practices. She is actively engaged in academic teaching, research supervision, and editorial initiatives, contributing to capacity building and integrity in scientific publishing, particularly within regional and Global South contexts.
View All Posts by Nasrin Ghassemi BarghiDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
