ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF REVIEWER CONDUCT ON PUBLICATION OUTCOMES:

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE PUBLICATION ENVIRONMENT

Abstract

Inconsistencies in reviewers' behaviour persist and continue to raise concerns about the fairness, transparency, and efficiency of the peer-review process, impacting publication. However, there is little empirical research to account for the connection between certain aspects of reviewer behaviour and publication. Based on the Dual-Process Theory, the study examined ethical issues of reviewers' conduct on publication, regarding their mood, availability/, and feedback quality. The quantitative descriptive-correlational research approach was used, with data gathered from 310 participants (including authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers) who completed the five-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's product-moment correlation were used to analyse the data via SPSS. Reviewer mood was marginally but significantly correlated with manuscript evaluation (r = 0.177, p = 0.002); reviewer availability and responsiveness were positively correlated with timely publication (r = 0.246, p = 0.000). The quality of reviewer feedback had a moderate positive relationship with publication outcomes (r = 0.377, p = 0.000), which was the highest observed relationship. The study results show that reviewer conduct influences the process of manuscript evaluation, evaluation timeliness, and the effectiveness of reviewing. The study therefore recommends structuring reviewer roles to fit reviewer schedules, regular editorial oversight, and rewards for timely and constructive reviews