[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 300–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Davidoff, F. (1998). Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 66–68.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ to peer review. British Medical Journal, 318, 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mulligan, A. (2005). Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology, 41, 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schroter, S., et al. (2004). Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? British Medical Journal, 328, 673–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benos, D., et al. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physics Education, 27, 47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2007). Guidelines on good publication and the code of conduct. Available at: http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines. Accessed 25 June 2007.

  8. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible-openness, accountability, and credit. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2762–2765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fabiato, A. (1994). Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovascular Research, 28, 1134–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dalton, R. (2001). Peers under pressure. Nature, 413, 102–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lawrence, P. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Anonymous. (2001). Bad peer reviewers. Nature, 413, 93.

  13. Regehr, G., & Bordage, G. (2006). To blind or not to blind? Medical Education, 40, 832–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the intramural program of the NIEHS/NIH. It does not represent the views of the NIEHS or NIH. We are grateful to Grace Kissling for helpful comments and suggestions.

Author Contributions: DBR was involved in the conception and design of this study, data collection, data interpretation, and drafting and editing the manuscript. CGF helped with recording and analyzing data and drafting and editing the manuscript. SP analyzed and interpreted data and help to draft and edit the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIEHS/NIH, Mail Drop NH 06, Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Gutierrez-Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shyamal Peddada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Resnik.

Appendix: Survey Questions used in this Study

Appendix: Survey Questions used in this Study

  1. 1.

    Approximately how many articles have you published in peer-reviewed scientific or professional journals?

Have any of the following ever happened to you during the peer review process:

  1. 2.

    The review period took longer than 6 months.

  2. 3.

    The review period took longer than a year.

  3. 4.

    Comments from reviewers included personal attacks.

  4. 5.

    A reviewer was incompetent (i.e. he/she did not carefully read the article, was not familiar with the subject matter, or made mistakes of fact or reasoning in his/her review).

  5. 6.

    A reviewer was biased (i.e. didn’t give an article a fair hearing, prejudged it).

  6. 7.

    A reviewer breeched the confidentiality of the article without your permission.

  7. 8.

    A reviewer used your ideas, data, or methods without your permission.

  8. 9.

    A reviewer delayed the review so that he/she could publish an article on the same topic.

  9. 10.

    A reviewer required you to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B., Gutierrez-Ford, C. & Peddada, S. Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 305–310 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation