Peer review is part of the bedrock of science. In recent years the focus of peer review has shifted toward developmental reviewing, an approach intended to focus on the author’s growth and development. Yet, does the focus on developing the author have unintended consequences for the development of science? In this paper, we critique the developmental approach to peer review and contrast it with the constructive approach, which focuses on improvement of the research. We suggest the developmental approach, although with laudable aims, has also produced unintended consequences that negatively impact authors’ experiences as well as the quality and meaningfulness of the science published. We identify problems and discuss potential solutions that can strengthen peer review and contribute to science for a smarter workplace.

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology has largely ignored organized labor, both in terms of our research interests and as a potential domain of professional practice. Historically, some I-O psychologists have even engaged in antilabor activities. This article aims to make that history more salient to current members of the profession, help us better understand how and why that schism came about, note the adverse effects on our understanding of organizations and contributing to employee well-being and organizational effectiveness, and highlight associated ethical issues. We offer suggestions on how to address the situation, drawing on examples from the field of industrial relations. We also consider the impact of the current antilabor, antidemocratic US government administration. We conclude by offering some suggested prompts for commentaries to the article.

We argue that it is both timely and critical to make a clearer distinction between destructive/toxic and incompetent leadership to advance research and better mitigate the problems with leadership quality. To achieve this, we first review and integrate the fragmented literature on the subject and specify what competent and effective leadership is. We then propose an operational definition of toxic leadership that is useful for practitioners to make a better distinction between toxic and incompetent leadership. We finally provide recommendations to avoid and deal with toxic leadership in organizations and discuss research directions.