01816nas a2200241   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260000900043653001200052653001600064653001500080100002200095700002800117700002500145700001900170700002100189700001900210245004700229300000600276490000600282520127200288022001401560       2020                            d  c202010aBiology10apeer review10aPsychology1 aTravis G. Gerwing1 aAlyssa M. Allen Gerwing1 aStephanie Avery-Gomm1 aChi-Yeung Choi1 aJeff C. Clements1 aJoshua A. Rash00aQuantifying professionalism in peer review  a90 v53 aBACKGROUND: The process of peer-review in academia has attracted criticism surrounding issues of bias, fairness, and professionalism; however, frequency of occurrence of such comments is unknown.
METHODS: We evaluated 1491 sets of reviewer comments from the fields of "Ecology and Evolution" and "Behavioural Medicine," of which 920 were retrieved from the online review repository Publons and 571 were obtained from six early career investigators. Comment sets were coded for the occurrence of "unprofessional comments" and "incomplete, inaccurate or unsubstantiated critiques" using an a-prior rubric based on our published research. Results are presented as absolute numbers and percentages.
RESULTS: Overall, 12% (179) of comment sets included at least one unprofessional comment towards the author or their work, and 41% (611) contained incomplete, inaccurate of unsubstantiated critiques (IIUC).
CONCLUSIONS: The large number of unprofessional comments, and IIUCs observed could heighten psychological distress among investigators, particularly those at an early stage in their career. We suggest that development and adherence to a universally agreed upon reviewer code of conduct is necessary to improve the quality and professional experience of peer review.  a2058-8615