Who benefits from developmental reviews?

All focal article authors (Allen et al., Reference Allen, French, Avery, King and Wiermik2026) are all highly accomplished and well published scholars, presumably with strong institutional support and access to the types of resources that (we think) help them develop their pipeline of publications. We recognize that from the perspective of highly accomplished scholars, receiving developmental notes on how to improve as an author feels redundant at best and patronizing at worst. Yet, we contend that most research is not conducted by such highly accomplished scholars, and these scholars and the broader field benefit from developmental reviews.

As the focal article authors observe, “reaction to developmental reviewing may differ depending on experience and career stage” (p. 15). They further propose that journals might calibrate their feedback to different kinds of authors. We agree and want to extend that line of reasoning—developmental reviewing is a mechanism that helps close persistent gaps in training and resources that are unevenly distributed across scholars in the field. For those employed at less resourced institutions, or those less socialized into the field’s norms, developmental feedback may be the only place where the invisible “know-hows” of publishing become visible.

Often enough, the difference between unpublishable and publishable research depends on unwritten “rules of the game” that are not readily obvious to everyone. Some doctoral programs (and advisors) teach these skills explicitly, but many do not, resulting in systematic variation between programs. One need not look far to find underdeveloped doctoral programs. One of the authors of this commentary is based in France, a Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) country. He can attest that even that WEIRD country has only a handful of doctoral programs that equip doctoral students to produce high-quality research. Developmental reviewing can help close the gap proliferated by differences in training quality, giving early-stage scholars the professional socialization they might not otherwise receive. Without developmental feedback, the review process is often a mechanism to filter out the “have-nots.”

A similar logic can be applied to researchers in the periphery of academia. Those at underfunded institutions, in teaching-intensive roles, or in parts of the world where resources are scarcer often lack access to the unwritten norms of publishing. For many scholars, the first time their work is analyzed at the level expected by a leading journal is when they submit to one. Although highly accomplished research teams know how to prepare their manuscripts to maximize their chances of publication at top-tier I-O journals, passing the desk review and receiving reviewer feedback is one of the only ways many scholars can learn the “know-hows” of publishing at reputable journals.

Language presents another structural hurdle. Non-native English speakers (or more generally, speakers with low-level command of the English language) may produce interesting and rigorous science whose value is often (unintentionally) obscured in communication. When these researchers also lack access to editing services, peer feedback, or research assistants who can help improve a manuscript vis-à-vis journal submission, even substantial contributions can be difficult to get published. A developmental reviewer mindset should help distinguish the quality of science from the quality of their linguistic expression.

Resource inequities also intersect with evolving scientific norms. Expectations for open-science practices are on the rise, but doctoral training around these practices remains uneven at best. Complying with the increasingly harshest open-science standards often demands skills and resources that are easier to acquire in well-funded labs than in under-resourced ones. We are not of the mind that a developmental approach should excuse lower transparency. However, it can offer a way to teach authors these standards rather than punishing them for their ignorance.

Developmental review benefits can extend beyond the individual author. The field benefits by keeping promising but undersocialized scholars engaged after initial setbacks. We know of many cases of early-stage scholars who left academia after discouraging experiences with reviewers. Retention matters: Science thrives not only on who enters but on who stays. By not socializing scholars from the periphery of academia, their perspectives would never become part of the field. Furthermore, a developmental approach may be an efficient long-term strategy, even when it does not benefit seasoned authors. Guidance that helps an author learn how to report effect sizes, model longitudinal data, or clarify construct boundaries is not just a one-off correction that strengthens a single paper. Rather, it is the type of life-long advice that will permeate all that author’s future submissions.

Last, there is a matter of fairness. Holding everyone to the same publication standards is essential, but to do so without also ensuring that everyone understands what those standards are reproduces inequality within the field. Developmental reviewing makes expectations legible and attainable, particularly for those without privileged access to elite training or mentoring. We do not see this as indulgence but as an act of justice. Everyone needs to reach the same high bar, but we need to make sure that everyone has a fair chance to reach it.

Some potential unintended negative consequences

We have outlined the potential benefits of developmental reviews to increase fairness among specific scholarly populations and improve the overall contribution of the field’s scholarship to practice. However, we would be remiss not to mention the potential unintended consequences of disseminating the invisible “know-hows” of publishing. Central to achieving the benefits of developmental reviews is the idea that reviewers and authors engage with this process in ethical and transparent ways.

As discussed, reviewer feedback can have a lasting impact on the quality of a priori decisions that researchers make to generate interesting research questions and design studies to test them. Cumulatively, it also has the potential to be a key mechanism for improving the overall quality of science being produced. However, reviewer feedback too often focuses on post hoc triaging of the study at hand rather than guiding authors toward practices that strengthen future work. Thus, what authors tend to develop is not a deeper understanding of how to design better studies a priori but how to engage in what can be interpreted as reviewers’ endorsement of questionable research practices (QRPs) post hoc. To this end, we agree with the focal article in our worry that developmental reviewing could inadvertently exacerbate problems challenging the efficacy of our field, such as concerns over replicability.

When done well, developmental reviews can both enhance fairness among specific scholarly populations and improve research practices throughout the field. Regarding the former, authors are ultimately responsible for their work. However, given that reviewer feedback is a key mechanism through which many scholars learn the “know-hows” of publishing, it is easy to see how even well-intended feedback can be misused. Regarding the latter, many develop an understanding of not just the “know-hows” of publishing from reviewer feedback but also the “know-hows” of reviewing. Comments interpreted correctly or not as endorsing QRPs get perpetuated and have become widespread. Thus, emphasizing developmental reviewing that balances concrete improvements to a manuscript and strengthens authors’ future research may be just what the field needs in an era where scholars are facing increased scrutiny.

Making developmental reviewing feasible and rewarding

Reviewers, editors, and authors already work hard, usually with very little reward or recognition. Aligned with the spirit of the focal article, we think there are ways to both assist and reward reviewers who offer developmental feedback that might help with these issues.

• Greater acknowledgment: Journals could create an optional “Developmental Reviewer” badge to recognize reviewers who provided substantive developmental input. This effort sheds light on the invisible labor of reviewing through scholarly credit in a way that does not affect editorial decisions. This can reward reviewers by demonstrating their enhanced service to the field in annual reports or tenure and promotion applications. Moreover, this designation can allow editors the chance to more consistently allocate at least one developmental reviewer to as many manuscripts as possible.

• Repositories for developmental resources: Journals, publishers, or professional societies could maintain repositories of anonymized review excerpts that illustrate high-quality developmental feedback so that authors can learn indirectly without overburdening reviewers. Although we realize some of these exist, they are behind paywalls that authors from developing countries may not have access to. Similarly, these resources are largely written in the English language. As such, efforts to translate these to other languages can help educate those who already struggle with English.

• Reviewer boundaries: Journals should clarify expectations for reviewers to avoid reviews prone to encouraging subjective stylistic edits or opinion-based preferences (e.g., ghostwriting or suggesting citations based on personal preference rather than relevance). In short, developmental reviews should prioritize “meta-skills” (e.g., how to frame contributions, how to report transparency practices) that apply across papers rather than detailed line editing.

Developmental reviewing may not be beneficial to everyone, but it likely benefits far more than not. It can help level the playing field between the “haves” and “have nots,” serve as an opportunity for the field to revisit whether we are promoting ethical and transparent research behavior through our current practices, and, ultimately, improve the overall quality of our field’s impact practice. Although peer review is not mandatory for belonging to our field, it is essential for sustaining it. Likewise, developmental reviewing is not required of peer reviewers, but many engage in it as act of service that has been important to improving the work of their peers. Ideally, enhancing scholar development through the peer review process should have broad benefits to the field. However, to realistically achieve these goals, we must carefully consider how to better equip reviewers with the skills needed and to better incentivize and reward reviewers to engage in this form of service.