Reviewers should not destructively assume the role of a researcher.

It cannot be nullified that the peer review process is characterized by reviewers who tend to destructively assume the role of researchers. In so doing, this behavior undermines the intellectual ability of researchers, especially novice researchers, who dedicate their time attempting to contribute to scholarly epistemology. Effectively, this concerning behavior of assuming the role of a researcher denotes that the reviewers downplay the reality that researchers certainly know something; no matter how little or greater it is. Thus, it is not fair-minded for reviewers to regard themselves as if they are gods of knowledge. With this in mind, this particular paper aims to explore and open a dialogue concerning the challenge of reviewers who destructively assume the role of an author or researcher, thereupon sabotaging the peer review process by imposing their personal scholarly interests. This is against the reality that such conduct deters potential epistemologies that could make a constructive social impact within and outside the arena of scholarship. In parallel, such behavior from the reviewers may lead to the rejection of scholarly contributions that can generate change and transformation in the academic community. By the same token, the rejection of papers, in large part, by the recommendations of destructive reviewers who assume researchers’ roles may demoralize novice researchers who have a strong determination to construct and assemble original, and innovative insights into the body of knowledge. In view of this fact, reviewers ought to appreciate the importance of recognizing the voices and narratives of the authors without imposing their personal interests that could sabotage the quality and publication of valuable and well-deserving scholarly papers. On account of this, I conclude this scholarly dialogue by presenting some of the recommendations that may be considered to mitigate the problematized phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]