Reviewing Peer-Review A Case Study of the Current Challenges in the Peer-Review Process of Academic Publishing in Kenya

Abstract

The growing demand for academic publishing has led publishers to engage in unethical practices, resulting in predatory publishing. This lack of transparency in the peer-review process undermines scientific integrity and public trust in research. However, specific challenges faced by academic publishing landscape in Kenya remain largely unexamined. In the literature reviewed, the peer-review process is often criticized for opacity and also for limited stakeholder participation. This study explored the challenges and opportunities for improving transparency and accountability in the peer-review process among journal publishers in Kenya. A case study research design was employed to enable in-depth, contextual analysis of issues. The target population comprised 14 members of the editorial board at the International Journal of Professional Practice. Responses were collected through a structured online questionnaire. A total of 12 responses were received, yielding an 86% response rate. Findings revealed mixed perception of transparency in the peer-review process, with more than half of the respondent’s expressing dissatisfaction or strong dissatisfaction with current practices. While 58% of respondents agreed conflict-of-interest management is effective, a significant minority raised concerns about gaps in policy implementation. Review delays emerged as a unanimous challenge, with respondents identifying them as a critical issue. Other concerns included poor review quality, editorial and reviewer bias, lack of reviewer accountability, and non-transparent reviewer selection. The study concludes that while existing peer-review structures provide foundation for quality control, significant improvements are needed to enhance trust and credibility in the process. Recommendations include strengthening transparency by publishing reviewer reports, improving accountability mechanisms, and addressing systemic issues, such as delays and reviewer workloads. These findings have direct implications for editorial policy and practice, underscoring the urgent need for Kenyan journals to adopt transparent review models, enforce stricter conflict-of-interest disclosures, and implement robust accountability mechanisms to enhance the credibility and efficiency of scholarly publishing.