The Need to Review Peer Review: The Regnerus Scandal as a Call to Action

This article uses Mark Regnerus's methodologically flawed paper "How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," published in Social Science Research (2012) as a catalyst to expose fundamental faults with the existing peer review system in the social sciences. The acceptance of this article has not only been damaging for same-sex equality, but it also shows the utility of checks and balances in the current peer review system need improving. This is because: (1) the current system fails to utilize digital technologies of open review which have advanced multiple other scholarly disciplines; (2) the author nomination system facilitates the publication of friendly reviews; (3) anonymity in the review system permits reviewers to promote unchallenged, biased, or personally motivated publication decisions; and (4) impact factors might inspire editors to publish articles that might not otherwise be accepted. After first describing the Regnerus scandal and its political implications, the necessity of improvement in peer review on these four counts is discussed.