Literature DB >> 18311477

Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study.

David B Resnik1, Christina Gutierrez-Ford, Shyamal Peddada.   

Abstract

This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18311477      PMCID: PMC2642979          DOI: 10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  12 in total

1.  Peers under pressure.

Authors:  R Dalton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Bad peer reviewers.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.

Authors:  Fiona Godlee
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  How to review a paper.

Authors:  Dale J Benos; Kevin L Kirk; John E Hall
Journal:  Adv Physiol Educ       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.288

5.  The politics of publication.

Authors:  Peter A Lawrence
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-03-20       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; James Carpenter; Fiona Godlee; Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-02

7.  Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right.

Authors:  D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Opening up BMJ peer review.

Authors:  R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-02

9.  Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded.

Authors:  F Davidoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1998-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Anonymity of reviewers.

Authors:  A Fabiato
Journal:  Cardiovasc Res       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 10.787

View more
  11 in total

1.  Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Susan A Elmore
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.

Authors:  Ilaria Ampollini; Massimiano Bucchi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study.

Authors:  Boris Kotchoubey; Sarah Bütof; Ranganatha Sitaram
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Authors:  Aceil Al-Khatib; Jaime A Teixeira da Silva
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows.

Authors:  Maciej J Mrowinski; Agata Fronczak; Piotr Fronczak; Olgica Nedic; Marcel Ausloos
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 3.238

6.  Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective.

Authors:  Janine Huisman; Jeroen Smits
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.238

7.  Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

Authors:  Maciej J Mrowinski; Piotr Fronczak; Agata Fronczak; Marcel Ausloos; Olgica Nedic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention.

Authors:  Jonathan D Wren; Alfonso Valencia; Janet Kelso
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 6.937

9.  Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM.

Authors:  Nyssa J Silbiger; Amber D Stubler
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 2.984

Review 10.  Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science.

Authors:  H Sharma; S Verma
Journal:  J Postgrad Med       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.476

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.