The Ethical Dimension of Peer Review: Insights from Editors of Philosophy Journals in Spain

The Ethical Dimension of Peer Review: Insights from Editors of Philosophy Journals in Spain | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Ethical Dimension of Peer Review: Insights from Editors of Philosophy Journals in Spain Ramon Feenstra This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8107730/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Peer review is central to maintaining research integrity and quality assurance. However, its ethical dimension—particularly how editors understand and apply ethical principles in practice—remains underexplored, especially in the humanities. Objectives To examine how editors of philosophy journals in Spain perceive the ethical dimension of peer review and to identify dominant perceptions, challenges, and ethical tensions surrounding the process. Methods A mixed-methods design combined an online survey (n = 46) with nine in-depth interviews. The data were analysed thematically to identify shared patterns and discursive consensuses regarding the strengths, problems, and ethical aspects of peer review. Results Editors expressed a generally positive view of peer review as a mechanism for improving quality and supporting editorial decision-making. However, they also reported significant challenges: difficulty finding qualified reviewers, inconsistencies in evaluation standards, and, above all, limited community engagement in the review process. Few respondents reported instances of dishonesty, although some pointed to biases linked to different philosophical schools or traditions. This lack of engagement was attributed to academic overload and the limited institutional recognition of peer review as scholarly work. Conclusions This study highlights the tension between the ethical ideals of peer review and its everyday practice. Strengthening recognition of reviewers’ contributions, fostering feedback and transparency, and promoting collective responsibility could help align practices with ethical standards. The findings are particularly relevant in light of current initiatives, such as CoARA, advocating more qualitative and responsible approaches to research assessment. research integrity peer review ethics philosophy journals editorial engagement Introduction Research ethics encompasses all stages of the scientific process, from design and data collection to the final publication of results. The peer review process is also directly subject to this ethical dimension [ 1 ]. It serves as a quality control mechanism for what is ultimately disseminated in scientific journals. Various guidelines outline ethical principles that should guide reviewers’ actions—principles such as honesty, rigor, and fairness—to prevent misconduct in the evaluation process [ 2 – 4 ]. Beyond these general principles, peer review incorporates the notion of an ideal “peer-review community” [ 5 ]. In this sense, peer review is closely tied to a sense of community grounded in Merton’s epistemological principles of science: universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism [ 6 ]. The very nature of peer review rests on an altruistic principle: every researcher should be willing to evaluate the work of others honestly, with the expectation of receiving similar treatment in return [ 7 ]. The responsibility and diligence of reviewers are essential if the process is to approximate its ethical ideal. As Souder noted, scientists are obligated to share their knowledge and time to ensure the quality of published research [ 5 ]. In other words, there exists a relationship of mutual dependence and reciprocity: researchers can hardly expect their own work to be reviewed if they are unwilling to review the work of others [ 8 ]. This shared sense of duty generates a symbiotic relationship in which all members of the community benefit from the constructive comments and rigor provided by peer review [ 9 – 10 ]. However, as Wendler and Miller observe, this obligation takes an imperfect form, since scholars “have a duty to perform a proportionate number of peer reviews, but retain the freedom to decide when to fulfil that duty” [ 11 ]. One might even expect that researchers who submit more manuscripts should be proportionally more willing to perform reviews than those who submit fewer reviews—a point underscored by Wendler and Miller, who argue that “academics should accept at least enough review invitations to balance the demand they themselves generate within the system” [ 11 ]. Thus, peer review is only as robust as the ethical commitment of those who take part in it [ 9 ]. However, to what extent are these normative expectations fulfilled in philosophy journals in Spain? How do editors perceive the ethical commitment involved in the review process? Academic literature has extensively explored peer review [ 12 – 13 ]. Studies measuring trust in peer review generally report positive perceptions: 82% [ 14 ] and 85% [ 15 ] of researchers across disciplines consider it an essential mechanism for ensuring research quality. Similarly, in the Publons report, 98% of respondents rated peer review as either “important” (31.2%) or “extremely important” (66.8%) for maintaining the integrity of academic communication [ 16 ]. Nevertheless, several debates persist concerning the ethical dimension of peer review, particularly regarding potential biases—ideological, institutional, or gender-related [ 17 – 20 ]—as well as the tendency to reject highly innovative research [ 21 – 22 ] and the occurrence of misconduct [ 23 – 27 ]. Some of these issues have also been discussed within the field of philosophy, where peer review has been critically examined [ 18 – 28 ]. Scholars have reflected on the challenges and potential biases arising from the plurality of philosophical schools and traditions [ 23 , 29 ], as well as on the possible suppression of highly novel ideas [ 22 , 30 ]. From a philosophical standpoint, some have even argued for the abolition of prepublication peer review [ 31 ]. Several empirical studies have investigated philosophers’ experiences with peer review, focusing either on researchers [ 7 , 32 ] or on editors [ 25 ]—the latter particularly emphasizing procedural biases. However, while other disciplines have examined editors’ views in depth [ 25 , 34 – 35 ], little is known about how Spanish philosophy journal editors perceive the ethical and collective dimensions of peer review. The landscape of philosophy journals in Spain is largely shaped by the prevalence of open access publishing, with a strong predominance (73 out of 86) of the diamond route [ 36 ]. Most journals are hosted by public universities, and the ecosystem is characterized by the widespread adoption of the double-blind peer review model [ 7 ]. These structural conditions make the Spanish case especially relevant for understanding how ethical commitment and peer review practices evolve within the context of open access scholarly publishing. In this context, the present study seeks to address that gap by examining the experiences and reflections of editors. This issue has gained increasing relevance in the current context shaped by the international initiative CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment), launched in 2022, which advocates for more qualitative, responsible approaches to research assessment. Within this framework, peer review is recognized as a central mechanism for building a balanced evaluation system that integrates both qualitative and quantitative criteria while reducing dependence on “a limited set of journal- and publication-based quantitative metrics.” Finally, this topic holds specific interest within the field of philosophy, which encompasses diverse areas such as the logic and philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and ethics. These disciplines—situated at the core of the humanities and deeply concerned with normative reflection on what “ought to be”—invite us to ask whether their academic communities display a particularly strong ethical commitment to the ideals of peer review. This paper therefore aims to explore both how editors perceive the process and how they evaluate its ethical dimension. Methods This study is based on a mixed-methods design combining an online survey and nine in-depth interviews with editors of Spanish philosophy journals. Prior to data collection, the study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee on Human Subjects (CEIS) of the Universitat Jaume I, which granted authorization on May 19, 2023 (Code: CEISH/83/2023). Online survey The target population for this study comprised all journals published in Spain and indexed under the field “Philosophy” in Dialnet Métricas[1] . Out of the 98 publications listed in this category, a total of 86 journals were included after excluding (a) those that were inactive during the past three years (9 journals); (b) those published outside Spain (1); and (c) Nonscientific publications such as thesis abstracts or bulletins (2). Before the survey was launched, a pilot test was conducted with four researchers (two men and two women) experienced in Spanish philosophy journals. Their feedback helped refine the structure, design, and presentation of the questionnaire. The journals were contacted via the email addresses listed on their websites or through their editorial staff. The survey was conducted via Qualtrics between June 5 and July 12, 2023, with two reminder emails sent during this period. Out of the 86 invited journals, 52 began the survey, and 46 completed it, representing 53.48% of the total population (see Additional file 1 for the full list of 46 titles). The Qualtrics questionnaire included 22 items in total—18 closed and 4 open-ended—covering several thematic blocks concerning editorial processes, journal resources, bibliometric indicators, and peer review. The present analysis focuses on questions related specifically to peer review: Q1. Open-ended : As an editor, what would you consider to be the main strengths of peer review? Q2. Open-ended : Please briefly describe the main problems of peer review. Q3. Multiple-choice : What do you see as the main drawbacks of peer review? (Select all that apply) • Difficulty finding reviewers • Low-quality reports • Lack of integrity among reviewers when preparing their reports • Difficulty finding highly specialized profiles • None In-depth interviews The interviews were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024. In total, nine editors-in-chief of philosophy journals participated. The interviews were held via videoconference, recorded with consent, and later transcribed for analysis. The journals were selected to ensure the diversity of perspectives according to the following criteria: Representation of the three main areas of Spanish philosophy (ethics, philosophy, logic and philosophy of science); Type of journal ownership (university-based, association, private, or independent); Number of manuscript submissions received annually; Bibliometric impact; Budget and available resources. The participating editors were affiliated with the journals Araucaria , Bajo Palabra , Daimon , Dilemata , Con-Textos Kantianos , Hispanismo Filosófico , Isegoría , Recerca , and Theoria . Among them were three women and six men. The average interview length was 38.23 minutes, ranging from 18 minutes (shortest) to 88.27 minutes (longest). The interview guide included questions on the following: (a) Manuscript management; (b) Funding and journal ownership; (c) influence of bibliometric indicators on editorial management; (d) Open access; (e) Manuscript management; and (f) Peer review. The questions analysed in this paper were as follows: Please describe the editorial structure of the journal: who processes manuscripts and how (which platform do you use)? What is your experience as an editor with the peer review process? All qualitative material—from both the open-ended survey questions and the interviews—was subjected to thematic analysis via Atlas.ti software to identify shared patterns and discursive themes regarding the functioning of philosophy journals. To ensure confidentiality, all participants were anonymized and assigned numerical codes. For clarity, quotations from the online survey are identified by the code “R” followed by a number (e.g., R15), whereas excerpts from the interviews are identified by “I” and the corresponding interview number (e.g., I4). These codes are purely numerical, randomly assigned, and bear no relation to the order of participation or to any identifying information. A report summarizing the data collected has been deposited in an open-access repository. In addition, a separate paper specifically analysing the functioning and resources of open access philosophy journals has been published [36]. Results Peer review: A system positively valued by editors Responses to the question about the main virtues of peer review show that editors view it positively, particularly as a process that enhances the quality and improvement of submitted manuscripts (R3, R4, R13, R17, R18, R20, R21, R23, R25, R29, R32, R35, R37, R42, R44, R46). Similarly, interviews reveal a predominantly favourable attitude: editors generally describe peer review as the best system available—or, at least, the best one developed thus far. Only one participant expressed a skeptical position, although even this respondent conceded that it remains preferable to have no peer review at all (I9). Editors elaborated extensively on this topic—32 separate reflections within the interview data addressed the issue of peer review. Overall, the editors viewed the system as imperfect but necessary, the best model currently available for ensuring fairness and accountability in publication decisions. As one editor succinctly put it, “Indeed—it’s like democracy: the best system until proven otherwise” (I1). The notions of quality and improvement appear repeatedly (17 mentions) in the open-ended survey responses as well (Q1). Only one editor (R19) expressed skepticism, suggesting that the improvements achieved were merely formal. The rest (R3, R4, R13, R17, R18, R20, R21, R23, R25, R29, R32, R35, R37, R42, R44, R46) linked quality directly to the peer review process, often emphasizing its contribution to enhancing manuscripts and supporting editorial decision-making. Despite this broadly positive perception, several editors (R4, R5, R19, R22; I1, I3) expressed doubts about the rigor and depth of some review reports (Q2). They described instances where feedback was “valuable and appropriate, although sometimes too superficial” (R4) or where reviewers “focused on irrelevant details but failed to make substantive suggestions” (R19). Others noted that certain reviewers “don’t truly understand what a proper review entails,” producing reports “that are very brief and don’t discuss the article’s content in detail” (R22). As one editor put it, reviews occasionally consist of little more than single word judgments—“good,” “bad,” “very bad”—leaving the rationale entirely unclear (I1). These accounts suggest that editors occasionally perceive weaknesses in reviewers’ understanding of peer review principles and expectations, particularly regarding the level of analytical engagement expected in their evaluations. Peer review as a process that generally supports fairer editorial decisions In addition to its role in improving the quality of manuscripts, the editors highlighted another key function of peer review: its contribution to fairer and more informed editorial decision-making. They emphasized that external evaluations help support the selection process (sometimes described as a “filtering” function) by drawing on expert and plural opinions (R1, R2, R6, R9, R10, R11, R15, R17, R24, R32, R33, R34, R38, R46). Some representative statements include the following: This allows editors to make better-informed decisions. Peer review is a fundamental pillar of any journal that aims to do serious scholarly work. R17 It facilitates decision-making processes, as it helps the editor avoid making decisions in isolation. R38 Within these reflections, some editors described peer review as a protective mechanism—a “shield” against external pressures—while others viewed it as a democratic or ethical safeguard that helps prevent questionable practices. Their statements illustrate these perspectives: This ensures a certain democratic principle in publication decisions. R11 I think it’s a fairly horizontal way of deciding which articles are accepted (…) It allows the philosophical community to take part in shaping the direction of philosophy, so that it isn’t decided only by the editors of ten journals, but collectively (I8). A further theme emerging from both the survey and the interviews concerned the perception of peer review as a mechanism that introduces objectivity and impartiality into editorial decision-making. Nine editors (R3, R5, R16, R22, R28, R31, R36, R41, R43) explicitly referred to this dimension, often describing peer review as a process that provides an “objective assessment of the quality and relevance of submitted manuscripts” (R3) and ensures that papers are “as reliable as possible” (R5). Others framed this notion in more general terms, highlighting its role in “promoting objectivity” (R28) and offering a “balanced approach to evaluation through a distanced application of criteria” (R36). These accounts reveal that editors tend to regard peer review not merely as a procedural safeguard but also as a symbolic guarantee of fairness—a means of legitimizing editorial choices by anchoring them in collective and supposedly objective judgment. This emphasis on objectivity is noteworthy given the inherently subjective character of peer review. Nevertheless, the prevailing view among editors is that the process helps extend decision-making beyond the small circle of the editorial team, thereby fostering transparency and shared responsibility. At the same time, several editors pointed to disparities in reviewers’ criteria, revealing a perception of inconsistency in how manuscripts are assessed (R2, R6, R9, R15, R21, R25, R32, R34, R40, R42). Editors described situations in which “the reviewer’s arguments do not necessarily correspond to their recommendation” (R2) or where reports were simply “inconsistent” (R21). Some noted disciplinary and linguistic variations, observing that “reviews in certain areas tend to be harsher than in others, while articles written in Spanish often receive more lenient evaluations” (R34). Collectively, these accounts suggest that editors perceive a degree of variability in the rigor and coherence of peer assessments, which in turn may undermine the consistency and perceived fairness of editorial decisions. These perceptions of fairness and objectivity also intersect with the ethical challenges that editors encounter in practice. The ethical dimension of peer review: A generally honest but weakly engaged practice When asked about the main drawbacks of peer review, few editors (five in total) explicitly mentioned problems of integrity in the process. As one editor noted, “peer review has more perversions than we like to admit, hidden under the guise of strict neutrality” (R11), whereas another remarked that reviewers sometimes “confuse objective judgment with personal criticism” (R2). A further participant described “a certain hostility that emerges at the evaluative stage” and the tendency “to silence perspectives that do not follow one’s own methodology” (I7). Overall, the editors perceived overt ethical misconduct as relatively rare, although some sensed tensions between the ideals of neutrality and the subjective realities of scholarly evaluation. Beyond individual attitudes, however, several editors pointed to deeper sources of bias embedded in the plural and often polarized nature of philosophical traditions. Several editors have also emphasized the importance of mitigating biases and disagreements rooted in the plurality of philosophical traditions. One editor explained that selecting reviewers carefully was essential to “balance biases,” noting that if a reviewer “tends to have a certain bias, we look for another with a different one so that there’s at least some equilibrium” (I8). Others acknowledge that personal preferences and intellectual allegiances are unavoidable in a field characterized by diverse schools of thought (I1; R40). Despite these occasional concerns about bias, the dominant issue for most editors was not misconduct but the pervasive difficulty of finding and retaining engaged reviewers. In the open-ended survey question on the main problems of peer review, 21 editors expressed frustration over the scarcity of committed reviewers (R8, R11, R14, R15, R17, R18, R19, R22, R25, R28, R31, R34, R35, R36, R37, R38, R41, R43, R44, R46, R47). Similarly, for the multiple-choice question (Q3), 67.4% (31 out of 46) identified this as the principal obstacle, whereas 26% cited low-quality reports, and only 10% mentioned a lack of reviewer integrity. The editors vividly described the problem: It is difficult to find true specialists—beyond one’s circle of colleagues—who are willing to accept review requests and deliver within the expected timeframe (R8). It is not easy to find reviewers willing to do the job. It’s paradoxical: many authors complain about slow review processes, yet they do not recognize the relationship between submitting papers and reviewing others. The ratio should be three reviews for every paper submitted (R17). Lack of commitment due to the limited recognition of the task (R31). In interviews, the editors elaborated on these frustrations, citing overwork, time pressures, and the voluntary nature of the task as key factors. One described “finding reviewers as torture… not only finding them, but finding those willing to do a good job” (I9). Others mentioned the increasing number of declined invitations and the need to “chase reviewers to get them to respond on time” (I5) or lamented that “the reviewer pool… that’s the real key issue” (I1). These testimonies portray a community aware of the ethical importance of peer review yet struggling to sustain its practical demands within an overloaded academic system. Several editors (R5, R16, R18, R19, R23, R30, R31, R33, R42) explicitly linked this disengagement to the absence of formal recognition for review as scholarly work. Some argued that “reviewing should count more as an academic merit” (R18), whereas others described it as “a demanding job that doesn’t receive the recognition it deserves” (R19). A few authors have proposed that reviewers should be compensated financially (R23, R33, R42), although most favour greater institutional acknowledgement in performance evaluations. Several also mentioned delays in the completion of reviews, expressing disappointment over the extended time authors must wait for feedback—a symptom, they suggested, of the same structural fatigue affecting the system as a whole. Discussion This study highlights several fundamental aspects of peer review within the specific context of philosophy journals in Spain. Several key themes emerged on the basis of the editors’ testimonies. First, there is a broadly positive perception of peer review as a mechanism of quality control, which is consistent with previous research that associated the process with improvements in publication quality [ 14 – 16 ]. Editors also emphasize its capacity to foster more democratic and horizontal decision-making, as peer review distributes evaluative authority beyond the small circle of editorial teams. However, this ideal can be compromised when the ethical dimension of peer review is not sufficiently upheld. While most editors do not identify reviewer dishonesty or misconduct as a major problem, some note the presence of biases, particularly those stemming from differing philosophical schools or traditions. In philosophy—a field where intellectual pluralism and theoretical divergence are inherent—such biases may threaten fairness and compromise the integrity of the evaluation process, as observed in prior studies [ 23 , 29 ]. When reviewers judge submissions on the basis of alignment with certain paradigms rather than scholarly merit, the principles of integrity and impartiality are at risk. The most significant finding of this study, however, concerns the widespread perception of limited reviewer engagement within the academic community. The notion of a peer-reviewed “community,” where researchers invest time and effort to evaluate colleagues’ work in the spirit of reciprocity and shared responsibility [ 5 , 8 , 10 – 11 ], does not appear to be fully consolidated among those managing the process in Spanish philosophy journals. This finding is particularly important, as Grainger noted that peer review, as a quality control mechanism, “is only as good as the participants” who take part in it [ 9 ]. Similarly, Souder emphasized that sustaining peer review as an expert-based quality safeguard—especially in an era of increasing online populism—requires cultivating a genuine sense of community responsibility [ 5 ]. However, editors describe the prevailing attitude as one of limited awareness regarding the symbiotic relationship between authorship, review, and the collective functioning of academic publishing. Editors attribute this lack of engagement to multiple factors: academic overload, insufficient recognition of reviews in academic assessments, and the absence of effective incentives. Prior research has pointed to similar dynamics, noting that the competitive culture of academia can undermine the collaborative ideals that peer review relies upon. As Atjonen observes, this competitiveness “has jeopardized the noble philosophical idea of altruism behind the PR; scientists are expected to subordinate their interests to advance the interests of others” [ 10 ]. Other studies have also shown that competition may negatively affect reviewers’ honesty and integrity [ 38 ]. When considering measures to address disengagement, some editors propose monetary compensation for reviewers, whereas others advocate for stronger institutional recognition of reviewing as scholarly work (for example, through its inclusion in merit evaluation systems). These pragmatic solutions could help, yet they also raise the question of whether peer review should instead be understood as an academic duty—a demanding but intrinsically rewarding task whose value lies in the exercise of critical judgment and in contributing to collective knowledge [ 11 ]. This issue is particularly relevant for diamond open access journals, such as most Spanish philosophy journals, which operate with noncommercial models and limited resources [ 36 ]. Resource constraints in such settings naturally restrict the possibility of offering formal incentives for reviewers. In contrast, larger publishing organizations working under gold open access or hybrid models may have more structured mechanisms for reviewer recognition. Nevertheless, previous studies, such as that of Warne [ 37 ], suggest that financial rewards are not the main motivation for reviewers across disciplines. Reviewers are driven primarily by a desire to participate in their research community, to know that their contribution is valued, and to receive feedback on the quality of their reviews. They also appreciate opportunities to see the final decision and other reviewers’ comments, while public acknowledgement in journals’ “thank you” sections tends to be of secondary importance. These findings align with those of the present study, indicating that the most effective incentive may lie in increasing recognition and transparency rather than remuneration. These observations underscore the need to view peer review not only as a procedural system but also as a moral practice sustained by collective commitment. Strengths and Limitations This study focuses on a specific and relatively small domain—the community of philosophy journals in Spain—and therefore, its findings should be interpreted within this contextual framework. The empirical material, while limited in scope, offers a valuable glimpse into a field that has received comparatively little empirical attention. By giving voice to journal editors—key actors in the publication process—the study provides rich, experience-based insights into the ethical and practical challenges of peer review. Although the data are context specific, many of the issues identified—such as reviewer engagement, recognition, and the ethical commitment of the academic community—resonate beyond national and disciplinary boundaries. Future research could usefully extend this analysis to other areas of the humanities and social sciences, where similar editorial structures prevail, particularly in university-based, diamond open access publishing models [ 39 ]. Comparative approaches involving editors, reviewers, and authors would also help build a more comprehensive understanding of how peer review is practised and experienced across disciplines. Conclusion While limited in scope, the study offers broader reflections on how the ethical foundations of peer review are enacted and sustained in practice. This underscores that the ethical quality of peer review ultimately depends on the sense of community and shared responsibility among scholars. Beyond technical compliance or formal procedures, integrity in peer review requires an active ethical commitment to evaluate others’ work with fairness, rigor, and reciprocity. In the field of philosophy—where pluralism and divergent paradigms are inherent—this collective engagement is particularly vital. Strengthening recognition of reviewers’ contributions, fostering feedback and transparency, and cultivating awareness of the ethical purpose of peer evaluation may help realign current practices with ethical ideals. Such efforts resonate with the broader objectives of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which seeks to rebalance quantitative and qualitative approaches to research assessment and reaffirms peer review as a cornerstone of a responsible, trustworthy academic culture. Declarations Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the editors of the philosophy journals who generously participated in this study, as well as Professor David Teira for his collaboration in the data collection process. Conflict of interest declaration The author declares no financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest that could have inappropriately influenced the conduct or reporting of this research. This article was originally written in Spanish and translated into English with the support of artificial intelligence tools under the author’s supervision, ensuring accuracy and faithfulness to the original text. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee on Human Subjects ( Comité de Ética de la Investigación con Seres Humanos , CEISH) of the Universitat Jaume I (Code: CEISH/83/2023, approval date: May 19, 2023). All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. References Allen H, Cury A, Gaston T, Graf C, Wakley H, Willis M. What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learn Publish. 2019;32(2):163–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222 . Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf Taylor. Francis. Peer review in 2015: A global view [Internet]. Taylor & Francis Group; 2015. [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Taylor & Francis. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers – Taylor & Francis journal articles [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/ethical-guidelines-for-peer-reviewers/ Souder L. The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learn Publish. 2011;24(1):55–72. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110109 . Merton RK. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Univ Chicago; 1973. Feenstra R, Delgado López-Cózar E. La revisión por pares en las áreas de filosofía y filosofía moral en España [Peer review in the fields of philosophy and moral philosophy. Spain ] Rev Esp Sociol. 2024;33(1):a209. https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2024.209 . Riisgard H. Peer review: Journal articles versus research proposals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004;277:301–9. Grainger D. Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004 . Atjonen P. Ethics in peer review of academic journal articles as perceived by authors in the educational sciences. J Acad Ethics. 2018;16(4):359–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3 . Wendler D, Miller F. The ethics of peer review in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2014;40(10):697–701. Zuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva. 1971;9:66–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188 . Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 . Ware M. Peer review survey 2015. Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium; 2016. Sense About Science. Quality, trust and peer review: Researchers’ perspectives 10 years on [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Quality-trust-peer-review.pdf Publons. Global state of peer review 2018 [Internet]. London: Publons. 2018. Available from: https://publons.com/community/gspr Rowland F. The peer-review process. Learn Publish. 2002;15(4):247–58. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206 . Shatz D. Peer review: A critical inquiry. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield; 2004. Daniel H-D, Mittag S, Bornmann L. The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In: Cavalli A, editor. Quality assessment for higher education in Europe. London: Portland; 2007. pp. 71–82. Newton DP. Quality and peer review of research: An adjudicating role for editors. Acc Res. 2010;17(3):130–45. Horrobin D. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1438–41. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024 . Atkinson M. Peer review culture. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001;7(2):193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8 . Corlett A. Ethical issues in journal peer-review. J Acad Ethics. 2005;2(4):355–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-005-9001-1 . Resnik DB, Gutierrez-Ford C, Peddada S. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14(3):305–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4 . Fonseca-Mora MC, Tur-Viñes V, Gutiérrez-San Miguel B. Ética y revistas científicas españolas de Comunicación, Educación y Psicología: la percepción editora [Ethics and Spanish scientific journals in Communication, Education and Psychology: the editors’ perception]. Rev Esp Doc Cient. 2014;37(4):e065. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1151 . Das MG. Peer review for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(2):172–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014 . Jubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learn Publish. 2016;29(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1008 . Lee C, Sugimoto C, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784 . Katzav J, Vaesen K. Pluralism and peer review in philosophy. Philos Impr. 2017;17(19):1–20. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0017.019 . Atkinson M. Regulation of science by peer review. Stud Hist Philos Sci A. 1994;25(2):147–58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368194900256 . Heesen R, Bright LK. Is peer review a good idea? Br J Philos Sci. 2020;71(4):1247–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029 . Haslanger S. Preliminary report of the survey on publishing in philosophy. APA Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. 2009 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerPRSPP.pdf Lee C, Schunn C. Social biases and solutions for procedural objectivity. Hypatia. 2011;26(2):352–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01178.x . Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP, Cowling R. Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010;42(1):58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x . Karhulahti VM, Backe HJ. Transparency of peer review: A semistructured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4 . Feenstra R, Teira D. [Study on diamond open access philosophy journals]. Rev Es Doc Cien, 2025 (forthcoming). Warne V. Rewarding reviewers: Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publish. 2016;29(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002 . Anderson M, Ronning E, De Vries R, Martinson BC. The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13:437–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 . De Páiz MI, López-Carreño R. Qué estamos haciendo y qué necesitamos hacer: la hoja de ruta del Acceso Abierto en las Editoriales Universitarias Españolas [What we are doing and what we need to do: The roadmap of Open Access in Spanish university presses.] Poster presented at Open Science FAIR Conference; 2023. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8362710 Footnotes Dialnet Métricas is a Spanish bibliometric portal offering citation indicators for journals in the humanities and social sciences, mainly from Spain and Latin America. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Additionalfile1Listofparticipatingjournals.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8107730","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":549241092,"identity":"784a386b-0c0a-48e6-88f4-a995fe92fdf8","order_by":0,"name":"Ramon Feenstra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jaume I University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ramon","middleName":"","lastName":"Feenstra","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-13 16:23:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8107730/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8107730/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96905606,"identity":"40f0a89a-28bc-492f-bcec-63ac88bafe19","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 12:12:42","extension":"doc","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":120320,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"reviewedTheEthicalDimensionofPeerReviewRIPR.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/d46bbb4964fe07e6da18ee1f.doc"},{"id":96905605,"identity":"900c2997-269c-4af7-80c2-77a7406e99de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 12:12:41","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3881,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d40e148a3ad740ceadacdddbe065386d.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/eec8eaf1d7a6b28a0f4ea0b1.json"},{"id":96920818,"identity":"0416a93b-ea83-47a5-b013-77146559ae88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 14:15:26","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17431,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1Listofparticipatingjournals.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/d7efd645df34762d440ef2f7.docx"},{"id":96905610,"identity":"b9532b15-6f45-4f98-9e30-c15c8758dc70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 12:12:42","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":84209,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d40e148a3ad740ceadacdddbe065386d1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/90720be719b7df4e0c67b1c8.xml"},{"id":96905608,"identity":"05246f17-3acb-49ba-86b5-f9df85182aaa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 12:12:42","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":83620,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"d40e148a3ad740ceadacdddbe065386d1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/d6bc3d26444532acdf99ecff.xml"},{"id":96920887,"identity":"912fcc87-18f9-48b5-b83d-62507790ea83","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 14:15:29","extension":"html","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/954824015a49b5fb0cb363d1.html"},{"id":104003221,"identity":"5b93f4aa-88c3-4b20-aa6a-55b9d1fac374","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-05 14:27:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":522679,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/473fc7b4-5299-4827-bb30-30e5f1dcc248.pdf"},{"id":96905604,"identity":"9a7fc05a-bc9f-47c1-b087-d87903b78f2e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 12:12:41","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17431,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1Listofparticipatingjournals.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8107730/v1/39451d7f2cc7e7176e341e88.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Ethical Dimension of Peer Review: Insights from Editors of Philosophy Journals in Spain","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch ethics encompasses all stages of the scientific process, from design and data collection to the final publication of results. The peer review process is also directly subject to this ethical dimension [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. It serves as a quality control mechanism for what is ultimately disseminated in scientific journals. Various guidelines outline ethical principles that should guide reviewers\u0026rsquo; actions\u0026mdash;principles such as honesty, rigor, and fairness\u0026mdash;to prevent misconduct in the evaluation process [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond these general principles, peer review incorporates the notion of an ideal \u0026ldquo;peer-review community\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. In this sense, peer review is closely tied to a sense of community grounded in Merton\u0026rsquo;s epistemological principles of science: universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. The very nature of peer review rests on an altruistic principle: every researcher should be willing to evaluate the work of others honestly, with the expectation of receiving similar treatment in return [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The responsibility and diligence of reviewers are essential if the process is to approximate its ethical ideal. As Souder noted, scientists are obligated to share their knowledge and time to ensure the quality of published research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. In other words, there exists a relationship of mutual dependence and reciprocity: researchers can hardly expect their own work to be reviewed if they are unwilling to review the work of others [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis shared sense of duty generates a symbiotic relationship in which all members of the community benefit from the constructive comments and rigor provided by peer review [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. However, as Wendler and Miller observe, this obligation takes an imperfect form, since scholars \u0026ldquo;have a duty to perform a proportionate number of peer reviews, but retain the freedom to decide when to fulfil that duty\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. One might even expect that researchers who submit more manuscripts should be proportionally more willing to perform reviews than those who submit fewer reviews\u0026mdash;a point underscored by Wendler and Miller, who argue that \u0026ldquo;academics should accept at least enough review invitations to balance the demand they themselves generate within the system\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, peer review is only as robust as the ethical commitment of those who take part in it [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. However, to what extent are these normative expectations fulfilled in philosophy journals in Spain? How do editors perceive the ethical commitment involved in the review process?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcademic literature has extensively explored peer review [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies measuring trust in peer review generally report positive perceptions: 82% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] and 85% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] of researchers across disciplines consider it an essential mechanism for ensuring research quality. Similarly, in the Publons report, 98% of respondents rated peer review as either \u0026ldquo;important\u0026rdquo; (31.2%) or \u0026ldquo;extremely important\u0026rdquo; (66.8%) for maintaining the integrity of academic communication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, several debates persist concerning the ethical dimension of peer review, particularly regarding potential biases\u0026mdash;ideological, institutional, or gender-related [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR18 CR19\" citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u0026mdash;as well as the tendency to reject highly innovative research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] and the occurrence of misconduct [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24 CR25 CR26\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Some of these issues have also been discussed within the field of philosophy, where peer review has been critically examined [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR19 CR20 CR21 CR22 CR23 CR24 CR25 CR26 CR27\" citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Scholars have reflected on the challenges and potential biases arising from the plurality of philosophical schools and traditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], as well as on the possible suppression of highly novel ideas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. From a philosophical standpoint, some have even argued for the abolition of prepublication peer review [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral empirical studies have investigated philosophers\u0026rsquo; experiences with peer review, focusing either on researchers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] or on editors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]\u0026mdash;the latter particularly emphasizing procedural biases. However, while other disciplines have examined editors\u0026rsquo; views in depth [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], little is known about how Spanish philosophy journal editors perceive the ethical and collective dimensions of peer review. The landscape of philosophy journals in Spain is largely shaped by the prevalence of open access publishing, with a strong predominance (73 out of 86) of the \u003cem\u003ediamond\u003c/em\u003e route [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Most journals are hosted by public universities, and the ecosystem is characterized by the widespread adoption of the double-blind peer review model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. These structural conditions make the Spanish case especially relevant for understanding how ethical commitment and peer review practices evolve within the context of open access scholarly publishing. In this context, the present study seeks to address that gap by examining the experiences and reflections of editors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis issue has gained increasing relevance in the current context shaped by the international initiative CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment), launched in 2022, which advocates for more qualitative, responsible approaches to research assessment. Within this framework, peer review is recognized as a central mechanism for building a balanced evaluation system that integrates both qualitative and quantitative criteria while reducing dependence on \u0026ldquo;a limited set of journal- and publication-based quantitative metrics.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, this topic holds specific interest within the field of philosophy, which encompasses diverse areas such as the logic and philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and ethics. These disciplines\u0026mdash;situated at the core of the humanities and deeply concerned with normative reflection on what \u0026ldquo;ought to be\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;invite us to ask whether their academic communities display a particularly strong ethical commitment to the ideals of peer review. This paper therefore aims to explore both how editors perceive the process and how they evaluate its ethical dimension.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is based on a mixed-methods design combining an online survey and nine in-depth interviews with editors of Spanish philosophy journals. Prior to data collection, the study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee on Human Subjects (CEIS) of the Universitat Jaume I, which granted authorization on May 19, 2023 (Code: CEISH/83/2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eOnline survey\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe target population for this study comprised all journals published in Spain and indexed under the field \u0026ldquo;Philosophy\u0026rdquo; in Dialnet M\u0026eacute;tricas[1]\u003ca href=\"#Fn1\" id=\"#FNLinkFn1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e. Out of the 98 publications listed in this category, a total of 86 journals were included after excluding\u003c/p\u003e(a) those that were inactive during the past three years (9 journals);\u003cbr\u003e(b) those published outside Spain (1); and\u003cbr\u003e(c) Nonscientific publications such as thesis abstracts or bulletins (2).\u003cbr\u003eBefore the survey was launched, a pilot test was conducted with four researchers (two men and two women) experienced in Spanish philosophy journals. Their feedback helped refine the structure, design, and presentation of the questionnaire. The journals were contacted via the email addresses listed on their websites or through their editorial staff. The survey was conducted via Qualtrics between June 5 and July 12, 2023, with two reminder emails sent during this period. Out of the 86 invited journals, 52 began the survey, and 46 completed it, representing 53.48% of the total population (see Additional file 1 for the full list of 46 titles).\u003cp\u003eThe Qualtrics questionnaire included 22 items in total\u0026mdash;18 closed and 4 open-ended\u0026mdash;covering several thematic blocks concerning editorial processes, journal resources, bibliometric indicators, and peer review. The present analysis focuses on questions related specifically to peer review:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQ1.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eOpen-ended\u003c/em\u003e: As an editor, what would you consider to be the main strengths of peer review?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQ2.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eOpen-ended\u003c/em\u003e: Please briefly describe the main problems of peer review.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQ3.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eMultiple-choice\u003c/em\u003e: What do you see as the main drawbacks of peer review? (Select all that apply)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Difficulty finding reviewers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Low-quality reports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Lack of integrity among reviewers when preparing their reports\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Difficulty finding highly specialized profiles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; None\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIn-depth interviews\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interviews were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn total, nine editors-in-chief of philosophy journals participated. The interviews were held via videoconference, recorded with consent, and later transcribed for analysis. The journals were selected to ensure the diversity of perspectives according to the following criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRepresentation of the three main areas of Spanish philosophy (ethics, philosophy, logic and philosophy of science);\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eType of journal ownership (university-based, association, private, or independent);\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNumber of manuscript submissions received annually;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBibliometric impact;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBudget and available resources.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participating editors were affiliated with the journals \u003cem\u003eAraucaria\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eBajo Palabra\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eDaimon\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eDilemata\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCon-Textos Kantianos\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eHispanismo Filos\u0026oacute;fico\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eIsegor\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eRecerca\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTheoria\u003c/em\u003e. Among them were three women and six men. The average interview length was 38.23 minutes, ranging from 18 minutes (shortest) to 88.27 minutes (longest). The interview guide included questions on the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(a) Manuscript management;\u003cbr\u003e(b) Funding and journal ownership;\u003cbr\u003e(c) influence of bibliometric indicators on editorial management;\u003cbr\u003e(d) Open access;\u003cbr\u003e(e) Manuscript management; and\u003cbr\u003e(f) Peer review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questions analysed in this paper were as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlease describe the editorial structure of the journal: who processes manuscripts and how (which platform do you use)?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat is your experience as an editor with the peer review process?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll qualitative material\u0026mdash;from both the open-ended survey questions and the interviews\u0026mdash;was subjected to thematic analysis via Atlas.ti software to identify shared patterns and discursive themes regarding the functioning of philosophy journals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure confidentiality, all participants were anonymized and assigned numerical codes. For clarity, quotations from the online survey are identified by the code \u0026ldquo;R\u0026rdquo; followed by a number (e.g., R15), whereas excerpts from the interviews are identified by \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; and the corresponding interview number (e.g., I4). These codes are purely numerical, randomly assigned, and bear no relation to the order of participation or to any identifying information. A report summarizing the data collected has been deposited in an open-access repository. In addition, a separate paper specifically analysing the functioning and resources of open access philosophy journals has been published [36].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePeer review: A system positively valued by editors\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponses to the question about the main virtues of peer review show that editors view it positively, particularly as a process that enhances the quality and improvement of submitted manuscripts (R3, R4, R13, R17, R18, R20, R21, R23, R25, R29, R32, R35, R37, R42, R44, R46). Similarly, interviews reveal a predominantly favourable attitude: editors generally describe peer review as the best system available\u0026mdash;or, at least, the best one developed thus far. Only one participant expressed a skeptical position, although even this respondent conceded that it remains preferable to have no peer review at all (I9).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEditors elaborated extensively on this topic\u0026mdash;32 separate reflections within the interview data addressed the issue of peer review. Overall, the editors viewed the system as imperfect but necessary, the best model currently available for ensuring fairness and accountability in publication decisions. As one editor succinctly put it, \u0026ldquo;Indeed\u0026mdash;it\u0026rsquo;s like democracy: the best system until proven otherwise\u0026rdquo; (I1). The notions of quality and improvement appear repeatedly (17 mentions) in the open-ended survey responses as well (Q1). Only one editor (R19) expressed skepticism, suggesting that the improvements achieved were merely formal. The rest (R3, R4, R13, R17, R18, R20, R21, R23, R25, R29, R32, R35, R37, R42, R44, R46) linked quality directly to the peer review process, often emphasizing its contribution to enhancing manuscripts and supporting editorial decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite this broadly positive perception, several editors (R4, R5, R19, R22; I1, I3) expressed doubts about the rigor and depth of some review reports (Q2). They described instances where feedback was \u0026ldquo;valuable and appropriate, although sometimes too superficial\u0026rdquo; (R4) or where reviewers \u0026ldquo;focused on irrelevant details but failed to make substantive suggestions\u0026rdquo; (R19). Others noted that certain reviewers \u0026ldquo;don\u0026rsquo;t truly understand what a proper review entails,\u0026rdquo; producing reports \u0026ldquo;that are very brief and don\u0026rsquo;t discuss the article\u0026rsquo;s content in detail\u0026rdquo; (R22). As one editor put it, reviews occasionally consist of little more than single word judgments\u0026mdash;\u0026ldquo;good,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;bad,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;very bad\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;leaving the rationale entirely unclear (I1). These accounts suggest that editors occasionally perceive weaknesses in reviewers\u0026rsquo; understanding of peer review principles and expectations, particularly regarding the level of analytical engagement expected in their evaluations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePeer review as a process that generally supports fairer editorial decisions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to its role in improving the quality of manuscripts, the editors highlighted another key function of peer review: its contribution to fairer and more informed editorial decision-making. They emphasized that external evaluations help support the selection process (sometimes described as a \u0026ldquo;filtering\u0026rdquo; function) by drawing on expert and plural opinions (R1, R2, R6, R9, R10, R11, R15, R17, R24, R32, R33, R34, R38, R46). Some representative statements include the following:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis allows editors to make better-informed decisions. Peer review is a fundamental pillar of any journal that aims to do serious scholarly work. R17\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt facilitates decision-making processes, as it helps the editor avoid making decisions in isolation. R38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin these reflections, some editors described peer review as a protective mechanism\u0026mdash;a \u0026ldquo;shield\u0026rdquo; against external pressures\u0026mdash;while others viewed it as a democratic or ethical safeguard that helps prevent questionable practices. Their statements illustrate these perspectives:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis ensures a certain democratic principle in publication decisions. R11\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI think it\u0026rsquo;s a fairly horizontal way of deciding which articles are accepted (\u0026hellip;) It allows the philosophical community to take part in shaping the direction of philosophy, so that it isn\u0026rsquo;t decided only by the editors of ten journals, but collectively (I8).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA further theme emerging from both the survey and the interviews concerned the perception of peer review as a mechanism that introduces objectivity and impartiality into editorial decision-making. Nine editors (R3, R5, R16, R22, R28, R31, R36, R41, R43) explicitly referred to this dimension, often describing peer review as a process that provides an \u0026ldquo;objective assessment of the quality and relevance of submitted manuscripts\u0026rdquo; (R3) and ensures that papers are \u0026ldquo;as reliable as possible\u0026rdquo; (R5). Others framed this notion in more general terms, highlighting its role in \u0026ldquo;promoting objectivity\u0026rdquo; (R28) and offering a \u0026ldquo;balanced approach to evaluation through a distanced application of criteria\u0026rdquo; (R36). These accounts reveal that editors tend to regard peer review not merely as a procedural safeguard but also as a symbolic guarantee of fairness\u0026mdash;a means of legitimizing editorial choices by anchoring them in collective and supposedly objective judgment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis emphasis on \u003cem\u003eobjectivity\u003c/em\u003e is noteworthy given the inherently subjective character of peer review. Nevertheless, the prevailing view among editors is that the process helps extend decision-making beyond the small circle of the editorial team, thereby fostering transparency and shared responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, several editors pointed to disparities in reviewers\u0026rsquo; criteria, revealing a perception of inconsistency in how manuscripts are assessed (R2, R6, R9, R15, R21, R25, R32, R34, R40, R42). Editors described situations in which \u0026ldquo;the reviewer\u0026rsquo;s arguments do not necessarily correspond to their recommendation\u0026rdquo; (R2) or where reports were simply \u0026ldquo;inconsistent\u0026rdquo; (R21). Some noted disciplinary and linguistic variations, observing that \u0026ldquo;reviews in certain areas tend to be harsher than in others, while articles written in Spanish often receive more lenient evaluations\u0026rdquo; (R34). Collectively, these accounts suggest that editors perceive a degree of variability in the rigor and coherence of peer assessments, which in turn may undermine the consistency and perceived fairness of editorial decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese perceptions of fairness and objectivity also intersect with the ethical challenges that editors encounter in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe ethical dimension of peer review: A generally honest but weakly engaged practice\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked about the main drawbacks of peer review, few editors (five in total) explicitly mentioned problems of integrity in the process. As one editor noted, \u0026ldquo;peer review has more perversions than we like to admit, hidden under the guise of strict neutrality\u0026rdquo; (R11), whereas another remarked that reviewers sometimes \u0026ldquo;confuse objective judgment with personal criticism\u0026rdquo; (R2). A further participant described \u0026ldquo;a certain hostility that emerges at the evaluative stage\u0026rdquo; and the tendency \u0026ldquo;to silence perspectives that do not follow one\u0026rsquo;s own methodology\u0026rdquo; (I7). Overall, the editors perceived overt ethical misconduct as relatively rare, although some sensed tensions between the ideals of neutrality and the subjective realities of scholarly evaluation. Beyond individual attitudes, however, several editors pointed to deeper sources of bias embedded in the plural and often polarized nature of philosophical traditions. Several editors have also emphasized the importance of mitigating biases and disagreements rooted in the plurality of philosophical traditions. One editor explained that selecting reviewers carefully was essential to \u0026ldquo;balance biases,\u0026rdquo; noting that if a reviewer \u0026ldquo;tends to have a certain bias, we look for another with a different one so that there\u0026rsquo;s at least some equilibrium\u0026rdquo; (I8). Others acknowledge that personal preferences and intellectual allegiances are unavoidable in a field characterized by diverse schools of thought (I1; R40).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these occasional concerns about bias, the dominant issue for most editors was not misconduct but the pervasive difficulty of finding and retaining engaged reviewers. In the open-ended survey question on the main problems of peer review, 21 editors expressed frustration over the scarcity of committed reviewers (R8, R11, R14, R15, R17, R18, R19, R22, R25, R28, R31, R34, R35, R36, R37, R38, R41, R43, R44, R46, R47). Similarly, for the multiple-choice question (Q3), 67.4% (31 out of 46) identified this as the principal obstacle, whereas 26% cited low-quality reports, and only 10% mentioned a lack of reviewer integrity. The editors vividly described the problem:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is difficult to find true specialists\u0026mdash;beyond one\u0026rsquo;s circle of colleagues\u0026mdash;who are willing to accept review requests and deliver within the expected timeframe (R8).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is not easy to find reviewers willing to do the job. It\u0026rsquo;s paradoxical: many authors complain about slow review processes, yet they do not recognize the relationship between submitting papers and reviewing others. The ratio should be three reviews for every paper submitted (R17).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of commitment due to the limited recognition of the task (R31).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn interviews, the editors elaborated on these frustrations, citing overwork, time pressures, and the voluntary nature of the task as key factors. One described \u0026ldquo;finding reviewers as torture\u0026hellip; not only finding them, but finding those willing to do a good job\u0026rdquo; (I9). Others mentioned the increasing number of declined invitations and the need to \u0026ldquo;chase reviewers to get them to respond on time\u0026rdquo; (I5) or lamented that \u0026ldquo;the reviewer pool\u0026hellip; that\u0026rsquo;s the real key issue\u0026rdquo; (I1). These testimonies portray a community aware of the ethical importance of peer review yet struggling to sustain its practical demands within an overloaded academic system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral editors (R5, R16, R18, R19, R23, R30, R31, R33, R42) explicitly linked this disengagement to the absence of formal recognition for review as scholarly work. Some argued that \u0026ldquo;reviewing should count more as an academic merit\u0026rdquo; (R18), whereas others described it as \u0026ldquo;a demanding job that doesn\u0026rsquo;t receive the recognition it deserves\u0026rdquo; (R19). A few authors have proposed that reviewers should be compensated financially (R23, R33, R42), although most favour greater institutional acknowledgement in performance evaluations. Several also mentioned delays in the completion of reviews, expressing disappointment over the extended time authors must wait for feedback\u0026mdash;a symptom, they suggested, of the same structural fatigue affecting the system as a whole.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights several fundamental aspects of peer review within the specific context of philosophy journals in Spain. Several key themes emerged on the basis of the editors\u0026rsquo; testimonies. First, there is a broadly positive perception of peer review as a mechanism of quality control, which is consistent with previous research that associated the process with improvements in publication quality [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Editors also emphasize its capacity to foster more democratic and horizontal decision-making, as peer review distributes evaluative authority beyond the small circle of editorial teams.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, this ideal can be compromised when the ethical dimension of peer review is not sufficiently upheld. While most editors do not identify reviewer dishonesty or misconduct as a major problem, some note the presence of biases, particularly those stemming from differing philosophical schools or traditions. In philosophy\u0026mdash;a field where intellectual pluralism and theoretical divergence are inherent\u0026mdash;such biases may threaten fairness and compromise the integrity of the evaluation process, as observed in prior studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. When reviewers judge submissions on the basis of alignment with certain paradigms rather than scholarly merit, the principles of integrity and impartiality are at risk.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most significant finding of this study, however, concerns the widespread perception of limited reviewer engagement within the academic community. The notion of a peer-reviewed \u0026ldquo;community,\u0026rdquo; where researchers invest time and effort to evaluate colleagues\u0026rsquo; work in the spirit of reciprocity and shared responsibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], does not appear to be fully consolidated among those managing the process in Spanish philosophy journals. This finding is particularly important, as Grainger noted that peer review, as a quality control mechanism, \u0026ldquo;is only as good as the participants\u0026rdquo; who take part in it [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, Souder emphasized that sustaining peer review as an expert-based quality safeguard\u0026mdash;especially in an era of increasing online populism\u0026mdash;requires cultivating a genuine sense of community responsibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. However, editors describe the prevailing attitude as one of limited awareness regarding the symbiotic relationship between authorship, review, and the collective functioning of academic publishing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Editors attribute this lack of engagement to multiple factors: academic overload, insufficient recognition of reviews in academic assessments, and the absence of effective incentives. Prior research has pointed to similar dynamics, noting that the competitive culture of academia can undermine the collaborative ideals that peer review relies upon. As Atjonen observes, this competitiveness \u0026ldquo;has jeopardized the noble philosophical idea of altruism behind the PR; scientists are expected to subordinate their interests to advance the interests of others\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Other studies have also shown that competition may negatively affect reviewers\u0026rsquo; honesty and integrity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. When considering measures to address disengagement, some editors propose monetary compensation for reviewers, whereas others advocate for stronger institutional recognition of reviewing as scholarly work (for example, through its inclusion in merit evaluation systems). These pragmatic solutions could help, yet they also raise the question of whether peer review should instead be understood as an academic duty\u0026mdash;a demanding but intrinsically rewarding task whose value lies in the exercise of critical judgment and in contributing to collective knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis issue is particularly relevant for diamond open access journals, such as most Spanish philosophy journals, which operate with noncommercial models and limited resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Resource constraints in such settings naturally restrict the possibility of offering formal incentives for reviewers. In contrast, larger publishing organizations working under gold open access or hybrid models may have more structured mechanisms for reviewer recognition. Nevertheless, previous studies, such as that of Warne [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], suggest that financial rewards are not the main motivation for reviewers across disciplines. Reviewers are driven primarily by a desire to participate in their research community, to know that their contribution is valued, and to receive feedback on the quality of their reviews. They also appreciate opportunities to see the final decision and other reviewers\u0026rsquo; comments, while public acknowledgement in journals\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;thank you\u0026rdquo; sections tends to be of secondary importance. These findings align with those of the present study, indicating that the most effective incentive may lie in increasing recognition and transparency rather than remuneration. These observations underscore the need to view peer review not only as a procedural system but also as a moral practice sustained by collective commitment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study focuses on a specific and relatively small domain\u0026mdash;the community of philosophy journals in Spain\u0026mdash;and therefore, its findings should be interpreted within this contextual framework. The empirical material, while limited in scope, offers a valuable glimpse into a field that has received comparatively little empirical attention. By giving voice to journal editors\u0026mdash;key actors in the publication process\u0026mdash;the study provides rich, experience-based insights into the ethical and practical challenges of peer review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the data are context specific, many of the issues identified\u0026mdash;such as reviewer engagement, recognition, and the ethical commitment of the academic community\u0026mdash;resonate beyond national and disciplinary boundaries. Future research could usefully extend this analysis to other areas of the humanities and social sciences, where similar editorial structures prevail, particularly in university-based, diamond open access publishing models [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Comparative approaches involving editors, reviewers, and authors would also help build a more comprehensive understanding of how peer review is practised and experienced across disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003e While limited in scope, the study offers broader reflections on how the ethical foundations of peer review are enacted and sustained in practice. This underscores that the ethical quality of peer review ultimately depends on the sense of community and shared responsibility among scholars. Beyond technical compliance or formal procedures, integrity in peer review requires an active ethical commitment to evaluate others\u0026rsquo; work with fairness, rigor, and reciprocity. In the field of philosophy\u0026mdash;where pluralism and divergent paradigms are inherent\u0026mdash;this collective engagement is particularly vital. Strengthening recognition of reviewers\u0026rsquo; contributions, fostering feedback and transparency, and cultivating awareness of the ethical purpose of peer evaluation may help realign current practices with ethical ideals. Such efforts resonate with the broader objectives of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which seeks to rebalance quantitative and qualitative approaches to research assessment and reaffirms peer review as a cornerstone of a responsible, trustworthy academic culture.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author would like to thank the editors of the philosophy journals who generously participated in this study, as well as Professor David Teira for his collaboration in the data collection process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest that could have inappropriately influenced the conduct or reporting of this research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article was originally written in Spanish and translated into English with the support of artificial intelligence tools under the author\u0026rsquo;s supervision, ensuring accuracy and faithfulness to the original text.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee on Human Subjects (\u003cem\u003eComit\u0026eacute; de \u0026Eacute;tica de la Investigaci\u0026oacute;n con Seres Humanos\u003c/em\u003e, CEISH) of the Universitat Jaume I (Code: CEISH/83/2023, approval date: May 19, 2023). All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllen H, Cury A, Gaston T, Graf C, Wakley H, Willis M. What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learn Publish. 2019;32(2):163\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/leap.1222\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor. Francis. Peer review in 2015: A global view [Internet]. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group; 2015. [cited 2025 Nov 4].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor \u0026amp; Francis. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers \u0026ndash; Taylor \u0026amp; Francis journal articles [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/ethical-guidelines-for-peer-reviewers/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/ethical-guidelines-for-peer-reviewers/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSouder L. The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learn Publish. 2011;24(1):55\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1087/20110109\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1087/20110109\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerton RK. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Univ Chicago; 1973.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeenstra R, Delgado L\u0026oacute;pez-C\u0026oacute;zar E. La revisi\u0026oacute;n por pares en las \u0026aacute;reas de filosof\u0026iacute;a y filosof\u0026iacute;a moral en Espa\u0026ntilde;a [Peer review in the fields of philosophy and moral philosophy. Spain ] Rev Esp Sociol. 2024;33(1):a209. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2024.209\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22325/fes/res.2024.209\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiisgard H. Peer review: Journal articles versus research proposals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004;277:301\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrainger D. Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials. 2007;28(34):5199\u0026ndash;203. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtjonen P. Ethics in peer review of academic journal articles as perceived by authors in the educational sciences. J Acad Ethics. 2018;16(4):359\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWendler D, Miller F. The ethics of peer review in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2014;40(10):697\u0026ndash;701.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva. 1971;9:66\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF01553188\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoss-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189311. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0189311\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWare M. Peer review survey 2015. Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSense About Science. Quality, trust and peer review: Researchers\u0026rsquo; perspectives 10 years on [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Quality-trust-peer-review.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Quality-trust-peer-review.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePublons. Global state of peer review 2018 [Internet]. London: Publons. 2018. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://publons.com/community/gspr\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://publons.com/community/gspr\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRowland F. The peer-review process. Learn Publish. 2002;15(4):247\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1087/095315102760319206\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShatz D. Peer review: A critical inquiry. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield; 2004.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaniel H-D, Mittag S, Bornmann L. The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In: Cavalli A, editor. Quality assessment for higher education in Europe. London: Portland; 2007. pp. 71\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewton DP. Quality and peer review of research: An adjudicating role for editors. Acc Res. 2010;17(3):130\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorrobin D. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1438\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtkinson M. Peer review culture. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001;7(2):193\u0026ndash;204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCorlett A. Ethical issues in journal peer-review. J Acad Ethics. 2005;2(4):355\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-005-9001-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10805-005-9001-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eResnik DB, Gutierrez-Ford C, Peddada S. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14(3):305\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFonseca-Mora MC, Tur-Vi\u0026ntilde;es V, Guti\u0026eacute;rrez-San Miguel B. \u0026Eacute;tica y revistas cient\u0026iacute;ficas espa\u0026ntilde;olas de Comunicaci\u0026oacute;n, Educaci\u0026oacute;n y Psicolog\u0026iacute;a: la percepci\u0026oacute;n editora [Ethics and Spanish scientific journals in Communication, Education and Psychology: the editors\u0026rsquo; perception]. Rev Esp Doc Cient. 2014;37(4):e065. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1151\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3989/redc.2014.4.1151\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDas MG. Peer review for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(2):172\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.02.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJubb M. Peer review: The current landscape and future trends. Learn Publish. 2016;29(1):13\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/leap.1008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee C, Sugimoto C, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/asi.22784\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKatzav J, Vaesen K. Pluralism and peer review in philosophy. Philos Impr. 2017;17(19):1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0017.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0017.019\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtkinson M. Regulation of science by peer review. Stud Hist Philos Sci A. 1994;25(2):147\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368194900256\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368194900256\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeesen R, Bright LK. Is peer review a good idea? Br J Philos Sci. 2020;71(4):1247\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/bjps/axz029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaslanger S. Preliminary report of the survey on publishing in philosophy. APA Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession. 2009 [cited 2025 Nov 4]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerPRSPP.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerPRSPP.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee C, Schunn C. Social biases and solutions for procedural objectivity. Hypatia. 2011;26(2):352\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01178.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01178.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP, Cowling R. Authors\u0026rsquo; and editors\u0026rsquo; perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010;42(1):58\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarhulahti VM, Backe HJ. Transparency of peer review: A semistructured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6(1):1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeenstra R, Teira D. [Study on diamond open access philosophy journals]. Rev Es Doc Cien, 2025 (forthcoming).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarne V. Rewarding reviewers: Sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publish. 2016;29(1):41\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/leap.1002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson M, Ronning E, De Vries R, Martinson BC. The perverse effects of competition on scientists\u0026rsquo; work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13:437\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe P\u0026aacute;iz MI, L\u0026oacute;pez-Carre\u0026ntilde;o R. Qu\u0026eacute; estamos haciendo y qu\u0026eacute; necesitamos hacer: la hoja de ruta del Acceso Abierto en las Editoriales Universitarias Espa\u0026ntilde;olas [What we are doing and what we need to do: The roadmap of Open Access in Spanish university presses.] Poster presented at Open Science FAIR Conference; 2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8362710\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://zenodo.doi/10.5281/zenodo.8362710\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Dialnet M\u0026eacute;tricas is a Spanish bibliometric portal offering citation indicators for journals in the humanities and social sciences, mainly from Spain and Latin America.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"research integrity, peer review, ethics, philosophy journals, editorial engagement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8107730/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8107730/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer review is central to maintaining research integrity and quality assurance. However, its ethical dimension\u0026mdash;particularly how editors understand and apply ethical principles in practice\u0026mdash;remains underexplored, especially in the humanities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eObjectives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine how editors of philosophy journals in Spain perceive the ethical dimension of peer review and to identify dominant perceptions, challenges, and ethical tensions surrounding the process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA mixed-methods design combined an online survey (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;46) with nine in-depth interviews. The data were analysed thematically to identify shared patterns and discursive consensuses regarding the strengths, problems, and ethical aspects of peer review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEditors expressed a generally positive view of peer review as a mechanism for improving quality and supporting editorial decision-making. However, they also reported significant challenges: difficulty finding qualified reviewers, inconsistencies in evaluation standards, and, above all, limited community engagement in the review process. Few respondents reported instances of dishonesty, although some pointed to biases linked to different philosophical schools or traditions. This lack of engagement was attributed to academic overload and the limited institutional recognition of peer review as scholarly work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the tension between the ethical ideals of peer review and its everyday practice. Strengthening recognition of reviewers\u0026rsquo; contributions, fostering feedback and transparency, and promoting collective responsibility could help align practices with ethical standards. The findings are particularly relevant in light of current initiatives, such as CoARA, advocating more qualitative and responsible approaches to research assessment.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Ethical Dimension of Peer Review: Insights from Editors of Philosophy Journals in Spain","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-27 12:12:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8107730/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ce002587-bd47-4c5b-b358-2b3533473d09","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-05T14:26:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-27 12:12:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8107730","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8107730","identity":"rs-8107730","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}