Conflict Resolution in Peer Review
nounPronunciation: /ˈkɒnflɪkt ˌrɛzəˈluːʃən ɪn pɪr rɪˈvjuː/
The process by which journal editors address disagreements between peer reviewers regarding manuscript quality, validity, or publication merit. This may include obtaining additional expert opinion or using editorial judgment to reach a final decision when reviewer consensus is absent.
Plain English
How editors handle situations where peer reviewers strongly disagree about whether to accept or reject a manuscript.
Etymology & History
Usage
"Conflict resolution in peer review required the editor to invite a third referee to mediate between opposing reviewer assessments."
Style guide notes: Capitalize as 'Conflict Resolution in Peer Review' in titles; use lowercase in running text.
Also known as
Contrasted with
Related Terms
Frequently Asked Questions
What if peer reviewers strongly disagree?
Editors use conflict resolution protocols, potentially inviting additional reviewers or making independent editorial judgments.
How are reviewer conflicts resolved fairly?
Through transparent procedures like third-party review, editorial assessment, and detailed justification of final decisions.
Why Test Candidates on This?
Important for assessing editorial decision-making ability and understanding quality assurance in peer review systems.
Required skill level: Mid