Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
From Opaque Workflows to Auditable Integrity: A Framework for Reform
The legitimacy of scholarly publishing hinges on two interdependent pillars: trust in the rigor and honesty of published work, and transparency in the processes that produce and validate that work. Organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) emphasize these principles as foundational to research integrity. When these pillars weaken, the scholarly record becomes brittle: errors persist, biases calcify, and entire knowledge regions risk marginalization.
This piece synthesizes core problems in contemporary editorial and peer-review workflows, highlights how those failures manifest in regional contexts such as Iran, and proposes concrete reforms to restore integrity, fairness, and inclusion.
How Trust and Transparency Should Function
Trust in publishing is both social and procedural. Ideally, authors submit work that meets methodological and ethical standards; editors act as impartial stewards; reviewers provide expert, constructive evaluations; and readers can inspect the published record with confidence. Transparency reinforces trust by making evaluative steps auditable: clear editorial criteria, accessible review reports, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and straightforward correction mechanisms create an audit trail that the community can examine and learn from.
Initiatives such as Open Peer Review and frameworks promoted by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) aim to make review histories and editorial standards more visible and accountable.
Where Accountability Breaks Down
Opaque Editorial Gatekeeping
The editorial desk is a critical juncture where accountability frequently fails. Faced with high submission volumes, editors often resort to opaque heuristics, perceived novelty, automated flags, or superficial assessments, rather than documented, auditable rationale. First-stage decisions are rarely transparent, and justification records are commonly inaccessible to authors or readers.
Technology Misuse and Bias
Over-reliance on automated originality or language tools can misclassify standard academic phrasing from non-native English speakers as suspicious. This effectively creates a geographic tax, disproportionately affecting scholars from regions where English is not the primary academic language.
Peer Review Stress and Anonymity Issues
Peer review, the cornerstone of quality assurance, is strained by reviewer fatigue and lack of formal recognition. While anonymity can protect candor, it may also shield unprofessional or biased behavior. Platforms such as Publons (now part of Web of Science Reviewer Recognition) demonstrate how reviewer contributions can be formally acknowledged.
Insular Networks and Inconsistent Standards
Reviewer selection processes that rely on small, insular networks, narrow perspectives, and amplify bias. Mechanisms such as invoking a “third reviewer” when opinions conflict can be misused, serving as outcome management rather than rigorous adjudication.
Post-Publication Inertia
After publication, correction pathways are often hidden or slow. Transparent post-publication oversight models, including those adopted by journals aligned with Crossmark, offer mechanisms for maintaining an up-to-date scholarly record.
Regional and Local Perspectives: The Case of Iran
Global publishing failures are magnified by structural and geopolitical constraints in certain regions.
- Economic sanctions and financial barriers complicate access to international payment systems for Article Processing Charges (APCs).
- Limited editorial participation reduces opportunities for regional scholars to join reviewer pools or editorial boards.
- Open Access inequities persist despite global movements such as Plan S and broader Open Access mandates.
Diamond Open Access models, where neither authors nor readers pay fees, have gained traction through collaborative library initiatives and national consortia, offering a more equitable pathway for participation.
These structural challenges create a double burden: scholars must meet global standards while lacking equal access to infrastructure, networks, and financial tools.
Concrete Reforms for Integrity and Fairness
Audit-Enabled Editorial Practices
Publish review reports and decision letters alongside articles to create an auditable record.
Peer Review Recognition Systems
Integrate peer review contributions into hiring and promotion criteria.
Diversifying Editorial Networks
Actively recruit qualified editors and reviewers from underrepresented regions.
Financial and Technical Inclusivity
Support local APC payment hubs and expand Diamond Open Access platforms.
Capacity Building
Provide targeted training on conflict-of-interest disclosure, authorship norms, and editorial ethics.
Rethinking Metrics
Move beyond narrow impact factors toward multidimensional evaluation frameworks that value transparency, replication, and societal relevance.
Implementation Principles
Transparency should be the default. Publish review histories, conflict-of-interest statements, and editorial rationales wherever feasible. Pilot reforms in regional consortia, track measurable outcomes, and design systems that explicitly account for geopolitical and financial constraints.
Trust in scholarly publishing is not static; it must be continuously earned through transparent and accountable practice. Opaque desk rejections, overburdened reviewers, insular networks, and post-publication inertia erode that trust. In regions such as Iran, sanctions, resource constraints, and limited editorial representation compound systemic inequities.
Restoring integrity requires coordinated action: publishers must open editorial black boxes; institutions must recognize review labor; funders must dismantle structural barriers; and scholarly communities must demand auditable processes. When transparency is designed with equity in mind, the global scholarly commons becomes more inclusive, credible, and resilient.
Keywords
Scholarly publishing peer review transparency editorial accountability research integrity Open Access equity Diamond Open Access regional inclusion
Dr. Arash Pakravesh is an Adjunct Professor at Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran, specializing in Physical Chemistry. He earned his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Bu Ali Sina University and has since focused on advancing research and education in the fields of chemistry, applied chemistry, and related interdisciplinary areas. His work encompasses both theoretical and experimental approaches, contributing to a deeper understanding of chemical phenomena and their practical applications.
View All Posts by Arash PakraveshDisclaimer
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.
