The Anatomy of Peer Review project investigates trends and practices in peer review across leading journals in the broadly conceived field of bioethics (including medical ethics, nursing ethics, neuroethics, and public health ethics, among others). While recent efforts toward equity in publishing have examined citation patterns, author demographics, and access to publications, comparatively little is known about peer-review processes, practices, and reviewer demographics. To help build this evidence base, the project first explores contemporary trends in peer review and reviewer engagement by analysing publicly available annual reviewer acknowledgements. Some journals, such as those published by the Royal Society through its “Recognising our reviewers” initiative, have made these lists accessible and citable for several years. Within Bioethics, journals such as the Journal of Medical Ethics publicly acknowledge their reviewers annually. Where reviewer information is not publicly available, journals will be contacted to request reviewer lists.
Focusing on 20 journals selected for both their scholarly impact (as measured by the H-index) and representation of diverse regions, the study will examine reviewer lists from 2023 and 2024 to construct a two-year snapshot of reviewing practices. The analysis will investigate patterns in reviewer demographics, representation across career stages, and cross-journal overlaps. In this exploratory phase, the hypotheses will be intentionally broad, aiming to identify potential trends. Hypotheses that may shape analytical directions include whether senior scholars appear to review less frequently, whether early-career researchers may be carrying a disproportionate share of the reviewing workload, and whether reviewers are predominantly affiliated with higher-income institutions. The purpose of examining these provisional patterns is to clarify which areas warrant deeper investigation in more targeted research projects in the future.
Ultimately, this paper serves as a foundation for developing a more robust evidence base on peer-review practices in medical ethics and bioethics. By mapping who reviews, how reviewing labor may be distributed, and where potential imbalances or inefficiencies arise, the project aims to guide future research directions and to inform discussions about how journal reviewing practices can be made more transparent, equitable, and effective.
Research team: Daniel Rodger, Matimba Swana, Kumeri Bandara