In their focal article, Allen et al. (Reference Allen, French, Avery, King and Wiernik2026) call for a shift from an author-centric developmental review approach to a manuscript-centric constructive approach in I-O psychology and related research fields, arguing that it refocuses on strengthening the quality of the manuscript, a primary objective of peer reviewing. They extensively discuss suggestions that aim to “curb undesirable aspects of developmental reviewing or refocus toward a constructive reviewing approach,” noting that these suggestions are also “broadly applicable to resolving other issues in the review process (e.g., power imbalance, fairness)” (parenthesis original). Although I generally agree with their suggestions, I would like to add two additional suggestions that may have been overlooked in the focal article despite their merit.
Integrate, don’t dichotomize: A diagnostic approach to reviewing
Allen et al., argue that a developmental approach in reviewing that focuses on the authors’ learning and growth, although well-intentioned, can have negative consequences, such as undermining author expertise, creating misaligned reviewer incentives, and drawing attention away from ensuring the accuracy and validity of the manuscript itself. David Ketchen in his editorial also raised a similar concern that “the pendulum has begun to swing too far toward kindness” (i.e., “developmental” or “supportive reviewing”) (Ketchen, Reference Ketchen2002, p. 589). By contrast, a constructive approach concentrates on providing clear and actionable feedback to improve a manuscript’s scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and clarity.
Although I understand the perspective presented in the focal article, I respectfully disagree with the idea that we are limited to choosing between these two approaches. Specifically, Allen et al.’s suggestions to “allow authors to choose the type of review they would like to receive (e.g., constructive versus developmental)” and to conduct “experimental studies that compare different reviewer instructions (e.g., take a developmental approach versus a constructive approach)” frame the two approaches as mutually exclusive options (parentheses original).
This framing, although highlighting a useful distinction, inadvertently creates a false dichotomy that can limit the efficacy of feedback. The most effective strategy, in my opinion, is not to choose one over the other but to use both in an integrative manner, given that most manuscripts have multiple issues of varying sorts and scopes. We should view these approaches as distinct tools to be applied based on a diagnostic assessment of the manuscript’s core problems, which can be categorized by scope and required intervention (the amount of revision). Specifically, if an issue is narrow and clearly defined (e.g., methodological and analytical choices lacking justification, miscitation, and inconsistency across hypotheses), a constructive approach would be more useful. For instance, if a manuscript references invalid or obsolete sources or misreports statistical analysis results, the constructive review simply points out the specific, verifiable error and demands its rectification. However, if an issue is broad and systemic (e.g., a lack of a clear and compelling overarching research framework that helps justify variable choice) and requires a major overhaul (e.g., substantial amount of restructuring and rewriting) of a manuscript that otherwise has merit, a developmental approach would be more helpful by encouraging the authors to revisit their initial work and undertake a major revision. For example, if the research uses well-executed methods but lacks a coherent and compelling theoretical narrative, the developmental review guides the authors by offering an alternative framework—such as suggesting they reposition the work to address a specific theoretical debate or integrate a more relevant theoretical/conceptual model to better justify and/or structure their variables—thereby facilitating a major, conceptual revision.
As such, it would be more productive to retain the positive features of the developmental approach while eliminating the side effects noted in the focal article and use both developmental and constructive approaches in an integrative fashion. Ultimately, the most effective reviews integrate (blend) both approaches rather than strictly adhering to only one. Perhaps this is what Allen et al., intended to advocate for, but, unfortunately, their article focuses on contrasting the two approaches rather than integrating them for greater synergy.
Proactively managing the threat of reviewer conflict of interest
I appreciate the comprehensive set of suggestions in Allen et al., for enhancing the accuracy, validity, and fairness of peer reviewing. However, in my opinion, one critical aspect of the peer-review process is missing: conflict of interest (COI) within the review team, including both reviewers and the decision editor (hereinafter, reviewer COI).Footnote 1 An explicit reviewer COI policy is fundamental to the integrity of the peer-review process and serves as a safeguard for scientific objectivity (Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2018). Such policies are designed to mitigate a wide range of conscious and unconscious biases stemming from financial, professional, personal, and intellectual conflicts that can unduly distort professional judgment (Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2016; Reference Resnik and Elmore2018). By establishing clear rules and mandating disclosure, recusal, or reassignment, reviewer COI policies help ensure procedural fairness and credibility while maintaining public trust in science (Gottlieb & Bressler, Reference Gottlieb and Bressler2017; Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2018).
An undisclosed or unchecked professional or intellectual conflict can corrupt the peer-review process and undermine the credibility of research findings (Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2016; Reference Resnik and Elmore2018). For instance, a reviewer with a direct professional rivalry has an incentive to delay or reject a competitor’s work, which slows scientific progress. Likewise, a reviewer strongly committed to a specific theory may find it difficult to objectively evaluate an opposing manuscript if their primary, unstated goal is maintaining the status quo rather than engaging in constructive intellectual disagreement to advance the research.Footnote 2 A significant ethical breach in peer reviewing can occur when a reviewer, due to a personal connection with some of the authors of a manuscript they are to review, intentionally overlooks or omits criticism of serious problems (“fatal flaws”) within that manuscript. These problems could include fundamental errors in methodology, invalid data analysis, or conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. This greatly increases the likelihood that a scientifically flawed study will be published. Such an outcome is a profound disservice to the research field because it damages the journal’s reputation and contaminates the cumulative body of scientific knowledge with untrustworthy data, potentially misleading other researchers for years to come (Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2018). Moreover, although the authors may gain a short-term career or monetary benefit from the publication, it is often a Pyrrhic victory; the long-term reputational damage from subsequent replication failures could be severe. All told, unmanaged reviewer COIs ultimately harm everyone involved in the review process and beyond.
Although journals aim to prevent such outcomes mentioned above, reviewer COIs can easily go unnoticed. As Allen et al., note, “the larger pool of editors and board members also creates risk that editors will be less familiar as to reviewers’ competencies and expertise” and relationships with the authors, leading to “more error in matching reviewers to papers” and more unchecked COIs. However, journals in I-O psychology and related fields of study usually do not make their reviewer COI policies publicly available (although such policies may be internally available), leaving the academic community unaware of the existence, reasonableness, or enforcement of such policies. For the same reason, it is also difficult to know if review COI policies are consistent across journals.
To address the threat of reviewer COIs and their downstream negative consequences, leading journals in I-O psychology could work together and establish a discipline-specific reviewer COI policy through a collaborative partnership, similar to the “review commons” discussed in the focal article (Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2018). This policy should be publicly available. Relatedly, “setting high standards for an editor’s (and reviewer’s) COI and ‘watching the watchers’ with clear recusal procedures should help maintain the trust of readers, authors, and the public” (Gottlieb & Bressler, Reference Gottlieb and Bressler2017, p. 1758, parenthesis added). Additionally, leading journals in I-O psychology could (a) provide COI-related training for review board members and decision editors; along the same line, “journals can emphasize in their instructions to reviewers the importance of considering the merit of the work, and not trying to guess the identity of the authors” (Hillman & Rynes, Reference Hillman and Rynes2007, p. 625). The journals also (b) require the review team to electronically sign a COI declaration form (a check box) for each review assignment and (c) publish the name of the decision editor on each article as suggested in the focal article and currently practiced in some journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology; however, it may be difficult to publish the names of the reviewers to maintain the double-blind review process.
In addition, to strengthen COI management, which has been extensively studied in fields like medicine and public health (e.g., Gottlieb & Bressler, Reference Gottlieb and Bressler2017; Resnik & Elmore, Reference Resnik and Elmore2018), our field can adopt several proactive, system-level best practices. First, leading journals in I-O psychology should (d) move beyond reliance on manual checks by adopting technology-augmented screening. This involves leveraging tools like AI/ML-based coauthor network analysis (e.g., using natural language processing to analyze publicly available data from sources such as Google Scholar, ORCID, and institutional websitesFootnote 3) during submission to automatically generate a COI probability score for potential reviewers. This score flags hidden relationships (e.g., recent coauthorship, shared institutions, grants, or personal ties) that could compromise objectivity. Second, our field must (e) enhance reviewer and editor accountability. This requires all editorial board members and editors of leading journals in I-O psychology to periodically and publicly declare and update their potential COIs (a list of individuals with potential conflicts) and formally pledge to provide unbiased, inclusive, and fair peer reviews and editorial decisions. This practice helps safeguard the line between constructive intellectual disagreement and self-serving bias. Relatedly, leading journals in I-O psychology could (f) implement modified open review to increase transparency and openness. Although full openness is often resisted (Hillman & Rynes, Reference Hillman and Rynes2007), journals could offer reviewers the option to publish a concise, AI/ML-generated summary of the key review points alongside the accepted manuscript (with their names removed but the decision editor’s name included as discussed above). This step, inspired by models in medical publishing, mitigates COI-driven abuse by encouraging higher quality, less biased feedback.
Summary and conclusion
In summary, I appreciate Allen et al.’s work in tackling the unintended negative consequences of developmental reviewing and other issues in peer reviewing. In this commentary, I add two additional points. First, it would be more useful to use both developmental and constructive reviewing in an integrative, diagnostic manner rather than choosing one over the other. Second, system-level interventions, including collaborative, public COI policies, and the use of technology for screening, should be implemented to better manage unchecked and unmanaged reviewer COIs that can harm the integrity of the review process and retard scientific progress. It is my hope that these additional points and related suggestions contribute to positive changes in I-O psychology and related study fields toward a more valid and fair peer-review process, which is a cornerstone of scientific rigor and credibility.
