By Paola Galimberti
The editorial note recently published in JASSS (Squazzoni 2025) focuses on the central role of peer review, an issue that has now become central to the debate on scholarly communication, research integrity and the role of artificial intelligence tools in research validation processes, particularly for journals owned by commercial publishers (e.g. Tennant et al. 2017). The fact that reciprocity between scientists is a core value of the academic system, in particular to ensure rigorous validation of scientific claims and self-correction mechanisms, is undeniable, and the call for a more responsible attitude on the part of scientists is therefore timely.
The editorial note suggests initiatives to increase the sustainability of peer review in the journal, including better guidelines and training, linking the cooptation of editorial board members to peer review activities, and establishing rewards to compensate excellent peer reviewers. Regarding these initiatives, while I found the introduction of peer review training to be very appropriate and useful especially for junior researchers, I am concerned about the proposed evaluation of reviewers through ratings, as we all know that whenever a measure becomes a target, it can trigger adaptive behaviour (e.g. engagement in anticipation of a reward, only to decline once received), thus undermining the long-term effectiveness of peer review.
It is time for scientific communities to take responsibility for the reliability of research, which I do not think can be facilitated or enabled by positive or negative incentives alone. That is why I believe that open and public discussion of these issues, involving as many members of the community as possible, is the way forward.
References
Squazzoni, F. (2025). Editorial Note: We Need to Recognise That Peer Review is Central to the ‘Social Contract’ of Academic Citizenship. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 28 (1) 6
https://www.jasss.org/28/1/6.html
Tennant, J. P. et al. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000, 6: 115: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3
Galimberti, P. (2025) Short comment on "Editorial Note: We need to recognise that peer review is central to the 'social contract' of academic citizenship" (JASSS, 2025, 8, 1). Review of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3 Feb 2025. https://rofasss.org/2025/02/03/jassseditorial
© The authors under the Creative Commons’ Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND) Licence (v4.0)
Review of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 