Original Manuscript Skin in the Game: Personal Accountability and Journal Peer Review Donald F. Sacco 1 , Samuel V. Bruton 1 , Mitch Brown 2 , and Mary M. Medlin 1 Abstract Two preregistered studies explored the likelihood paper reviewers would request clarification from authors regarding potential questionable research practices (QRPs). Study 1 participants were instructed to imagine reviewing a journal manuscript as either a coauthor or peer reviewer and rate the extent to which they would request clarification from the author when encountering potential QRPs. Participants reported greater likelihood of requesting clarification when assigned to the coauthor relative to the peer reviewer role. Study 2 participants were assigned to either an anonymous or open- review condition and rated the extent to which they would seek clarification from an author regarding potential QRPs. Men (but not women) in the open review condition reported greater likelihood of seeking clarification about potential QRPs than men in the blind review condition. Results provide tentative evidence that motivational factors influence the peer review process, and suggestions are made for improving peer review practices. Keywords self, peer review, research accountability, questionable research practices Research scientists are regularly asked to evaluate scientific research. In so doing, they must alternatively assume a vari- ety of roles. Not only must they routinely scrutinize the quality of their own work to determine where and whether it is publishable, they must also assess the work of imme- diate colleagues and peers. The latter occurs in variety of contexts, including service on grant application review committees and tenure and promotion proceedings, and peer review of journal articles. Regardless, the specific role that scientists assume in the peer review process may directly influence how they evaluate the quality of the work, and depending on the role, differences may exist in the levels of scrutiny employed (Garc´ıa et al., 2015). Given the importance of various stages of peer review to the quality of the scientific literature and scientific careers, it is important to understand how reviewers’ roles influence evaluations. Peer review is nonetheless far from flawless. Quite apart from recent scandals involving fraudulent peer reviews (Hadi, 2016; Haug, 2015; Schuessler, 2016), many docu- mented instances of manipulated research have passed through the peer review process undetected, prompting numerous observers to question its effectiveness (e.g., Bohannon, 2013). The precariousness of scientific steward- ship inspires consideration of new measures to improve the integrity of the peer review process (Smith, 2006), and few question the desirability of improved methods of scientific gatekeeping. The current article presents a program of research involving two studies that explore how reviewers’ roles impact their scrutiny regarding potential questionable research practices (QRPs), a classification of research prac- tices that are increasingly becoming considered detrimental to scientific inquiry. 1 Strategies to Enhance the Quality of Peer Review There has been much recent discussion and research to identify weaknesses in the peer review process and recom- mend strategies to improve it so as to facilitate the publi- cation of only valid and reliable scientific findings. Traditional peer review models utilize various kinds of blind review. In a single-blind model, common in the bio- medical and natural sciences (Horbach & Halffman, 2018), reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to manuscripts’ authors. In a double-blind setup, common in the social sciences and humanities (Ware, 2008), neither authors nor 1 The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, USA 2 Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, NJ, USA Corresponding Author: Donald F. Sacco, School of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5025, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, USA. Email: Donald.Sacco@usm.edu Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1-10 ª The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1556264620922651 journals.sagepub.com/home/jre