The Dark Side of Peer Review

Abstract

Peer review is a process often viewed as critical to the advancement of science. But, as Norman Poythress and John Petrila make clear in the lead article of this issue of the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, it is a process that can go awry. They discuss a dispute that arose concerning publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal, the consequences of which included, certainly, a major delay in publication of the article; probably, an extra round of reviews and required revisions that were unwarranted; and, quite possibly, a chilling effect on research in the field. In this Editorial, I reflect on Poythress and Petrila's cautionary tale and its relevance for the journal's editorial policies and procedures.