Why should peer reviewers lack direct interest in the outcomes of their reviews?

The rationale for peer reviewers lacking direct interest in the outcomes of their reviews is fundamentally tied to maintaining the integrity and objectivity of the review process. When reviewers are not personally invested in the results, they can provide an unbiased assessment of the work, free from any conflicts of interest that could compromise their judgment. This impartiality is crucial, as it fosters trust in the review process and ensures that the evaluations are based solely on the merit of the work, the methodology utilized, and the results presented.

In this context, integrity in the review process means that reviewers will evaluate the work based on its scientific and academic rigor rather than external factors related to personal or financial interests. This objectivity helps preserve the validity and reliability of scholarly communication, which is essential for advancing knowledge in any field, including fire and explosion investigation.