Peer review fails when it is delivered without fairness, accountability, or respect. When unprofessional reviews are communicated without editorial intervention, they undermine trust, distort scientific dialogue, and disproportionately harm early-career and underrepresented researchers. This article combines a detailed case study with evidence from the literature to illustrate how reviewer misconduct can escalate into editorial failure, and why such outcomes are avoidable. Mechanisms already exist to prevent them, including pre-screening, structured review forms, training, appeals processes, and reviewer tracking, but require consistent application. The central problem is not the absence of guidance, but the lack of enforcement. Restoring credibility in peer review depends on editors treating oversight as a duty of stewardship, ensuring that critique remains rigorous, constructive, and respectful.
Stephen A. Bustin (Wed,) studied this question.