A peer reviewer is an implicit contractor

Peer reviewers are professionals who share their expertise with others by scrutinizing drafts of articles submitted to journals for publication. As members of the peer review community, we encounter peer review from two perspectives.

On the one hand, we may be asked to serve as a peer reviewer. In this role, we are given the goal of helping an editor to assess the quality of a piece. Our advice may also be solicited to help the author improve the form and substance of the draft. In either case, we must be mindful of our duty to protect the author’s intellectual property.

On the other hand, we may receive comments and suggestions from colleagues who serve as peer reviewers. From either perspective, the peer review process is a sterling example of contractualism at work. When we review manuscripts we do not simply offer criticism. Rather, we offer evaluative judgments that editors may use to make decisions about the value of the piece and that the authors might use to revise it. When we read another’s comments we commit ourselves to respecting their privacy and property. Peer review is a complex social activity in which both authors and reviewers have responsibilities. Reviewers must do their jobs conscientiously, and authors should at least seriously read the comments of reviewers even if their manuscript was rejected.

James R. Wilson has had two decades of experience as a journal editor. In the following essay he describes the norms of peer review.