Changing the Culture of Peer Review for a More Inclusive and Equitable Psychological Science

Peer review is a core component of scientific practice. Although peer review ideally improves research and promotes rigor, it also has consequences for what types of research are published and cited and who wants to (and is able to) advance in research-focused careers. Despite these consequences, few reviewers or editors receive training or oversight to ensure their feedback is helpful, professional, and culturally sensitive. Here, we critically examine the peer-review system in psychology and neuroscience at multiple levels, from ideas to institutions, interactions, and individuals. We highlight initiatives that aim to change the normative negativity of peer review and provide authors with constructive, actionable feedback that is sensitive to diverse identities, methods, topics, and environments. We conclude with a call to action for how individuals, groups, and organizations can improve the culture of peer review. We provide examples of how changes in the peer-review system can be made with an eye to diversity (increasing the range of identities and experiences constituting the field), equity (fair processes and outcomes across groups), and inclusion (experiences that promote belonging across groups). These changes can improve scientists' experience of peer review, promote diverse perspectives and identities, and enhance the quality and impact of science. Public Significance Statement The peer-review process is a crucial aspect of scientific research that influences the quality of published work and the career trajectories of researchers. This article critically examines the current peer-review system, highlighting initiatives that aim to foster a more constructive, inclusive, and equitable review culture. By embracing these changes, the scientific community can better support diverse perspectives, enhance research quality, and create a more inclusive environment for scientists from all backgrounds. Implementing these recommendations holds the potential to benefit not only individual researchers but also the broader scientific enterprise and society as a whole.