“Critique is not a verb”: is peer review stifling the dialogue in disaster scholarship?

Purpose: In this position piece, we will reflect on some of our recent experiences with the peer review process in disaster studies and show how debate can so easily be stifled. We write it as a plea for healthy academic argumentative discussion and intellectual dialogue that would help all of us to refine our ideas, respect others’ ideas and learn from each other.

Approach: We provide reflection on our own experiences. All the examples here are based on the anonymous (double-blinded) peer reviews that we have received in the past 2 years in response to papers submitted to disaster-related journals.

Findings: We show that the grounds for rejection often have nothing to do with the rigour of the research but are instead based on someone’s philosophy, beliefs, values or opinions that differ from that of the authors, and which undermine the peer-review process.

Originality: There is so much potential in amicable and productive disagreements, which mean that we can talk together – and through this, we can learn. Yet the debate in its purest academic sense is a rare beast in disaster scholarship – largely because opposing views do not get published. We call for is that ideological judgement and self-interest are put aside alongside our pride when peers’ work is reviewed – and that intellectual critique is used in a productive way that would enhance rather than stifle scholarship.