Reviewing the reviewers: a critical autoethnography of two global South psychologists on bias and inequity in peer review

Purpose – In this article, the authors examine several challenges faced by the peer review process, especially when evaluating the work of authors from minority groups, particularly those from the Global South. Design/methodology/approach – Using a critical autoethnography and drawing on concrete examples from their own experience as psychologists, researchers and university professors in Peru, they identify and analyze three key tensions: (1) biases and stereotypes related to the authors’ backgrounds, (2) disciplinary mismatches between authors and reviewers and (3) the reviewers’ failure to distinguish between essential revisions and incidental stylistic preferences. Building on these examples, the article examines key factors behind problematic peer review practices, especially editorial malpractice such as bias based on an author’s identity or affiliation and unjustified delays in manuscript processing. It also considers potential strategies for promoting a more equitable and transparent review system, highlighting good practices adopted by editors who are attentive to common biases and who actively work to counteract them in order to ensure greater fairness toward authors. Findings – Despite the structural constraints imposed by academic capitalism – particularly in indexed journals such as those listed in WoS or Scopus – we propose a set of measures aimed at mitigating bias and fostering a more just and inclusive evaluation process for all scholars. Drawing from our own experiences, we encourage authors to critically reflect on their encounters with the peer review process. Such reflection can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of review practices and aid in identifying systemic problems and forms of malpractice – within this framework. Originality/value – The originality of this article lies in the way the authors start from their own concrete experiences to illuminate broader, systemic issues in peer review. Drawing on firsthand encounters, they identify the mechanisms that often lead to problematic editorial practices—such as identity- or affiliation-based bias and unwarranted delays in manuscript handling. By situating personal observations within a wider academic context, the article shows how these individual experiences reflect patterns that affect many scholars. It also explores practical ways to foster a more equitable and transparent review culture, highlighting exemplary editorial practices that consciously address common biases and work proactively to promote fairness for all authors.