In (marketing) research, the peer-review process plays an important role in ensuring the quality and integrity of published work. However, a growing concern has emerged among researchers: reviewers often focus more on how they would have written the manuscript and what is missing rather than providing constructive comments to improve the current work. This approach, which can be likened to asking a chef to transform a vegan salad into a meat-lovers pizza without considering their original vision, reduces the progress and diversity of research in the field.

The purpose of peer reviews is to provide authors with valuable insights and suggestions to enhance their work, ultimately advancing marketing research. However, when reviewers prioritize their personal preferences and expectations over the objectives of the study at hand, they risk undermining the very essence of the peer-review process.

Imagine a researcher who has carefully crafted a study exploring the impact of social media influencers on sustainable fashion choices among millennials. They have meticulously designed their methodology, collected data, and drawn meaningful conclusions based on their findings. However, upon submitting their work for peer review, they are met with comments such as: “Why didn’t you include Gen Z in your sample?” or “You should have analyzed the impact of traditional advertising as well.” While these suggestions may have merit in their own right, they fail to acknowledge the specific focus and scope of the study.

This trend of reviewers imposing their own research agendas and preferences onto the work of others is problematic for several reasons. First, it can lead to a homogenization of research, as authors feel pressured to conform to the expectations of reviewers rather than look into novel and innovative ideas. Second, it can discourage researchers from exploring niche or unconventional topics, as they anticipate facing resistance from reviewers who may not appreciate the value of their work. Finally, it can result in a time-consuming, negative, and frustrating revision process, as authors struggle to address comments that are not directly relevant to their original research questions.

To encourage a more constructive and supportive peer-review culture in marketing research journals, reviewers could shift their focus from what they would have done differently to how they can help authors improve their existing work. This means providing specific, actionable feedback that acknowledges the strengths of the study while offering suggestions for addressing its limitations. Reviewers could try to understand better the authors’ objectives and evaluate the manuscript based on how well it achieves those goals, rather than imposing their own expectations.

Moreover, journal editors have a responsibility to ensure that the peer-review process remains fair, objective, and constructive. They can achieve this by carefully selecting reviewers who have expertise in the relevant research area and by providing clear guidelines on the purpose and scope of the review. Editors should also be willing to intervene when reviewers provide comments that are not constructive or relevant to the manuscript, ensuring that authors receive feedback that will actually help them improve their work.