Developmental reviewing: Is it really good for science?

Abstract Peer review is part of the bedrock of science. In recent years the focus of peer review has shifted toward developmental reviewing, an approach intended to focus on the author’s growth and development. Yet, does the focus on developing the author have unintended consequences for the development of science? In this paper, we critique the developmental approach to peer review and contrast it with the constructive approach, which focuses on improvement of the research. We suggest the developmental approach, although with laudable aims, has also produced unintended consequences that negatively impact authors’ experiences as well as the quality and meaningfulness of the science published. We identify problems and discuss potential solutions that can strengthen peer review and contribute to science for a smarter workplace.