How to deal with improper or unethical peer review – Pubrica

How to Deal With Improper or Unethical Peer Review

An Academic presentation by Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica Group: Email: www.pubrica.com sales@pubrica.com

Today's Discussion Outlin e Functionality and Quality of Peer Review Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers The Ethical Status of Peer Review Alternatives Conclusion

FUNCTIONALITY AND QUALITY OF PEER REVIEW Peer review is now nearly universal

in

scholarly publications, and it is regarded as a necessary component the publishing process.

There is noofagreement on what peer review is, what it is for, what distinguishes a 'good' review from a 'poor' review, or how even to begin to define Some publishers may have previously 'quality review. acquired, processed, and analysed peer review data internally to monitor and improve their processes.

Contd.. .

This may be a significant file drawer issue, as such information is only of little utility if solely utilised for personal reasons.

Empirical data on a variety of aspects of the peer review process might be obtained, with different degrees of per difficulty, The number of referee reports article, to how many understand better rounds of is peer review howthere? it works, including: Length of referee reports During the evaluation process, was code, data, and documents Contd.. made available? .

Was any code, data, or materials accessible for inspection/analysis during the process?

Who decides whether the reports should be available to the public when these choices are made, and what should be contained in them?

The percentage of papers that receive (e.g. editorial "desk rejects" versuscomments) "peer review rejections."

What happens to submissions that are submitted?

Table 1: Journal peer-review survey data

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS AND REVIEWERS The Committee on Publishing Ethical (COPE) was established in 1997 to address research and publication ethics violations and provide It provides standards for writers, a code of conduct for biomedical journals. editors, editorial board members, readers, journal owners, and publishers to establish the best practice in scientific publishing Contd.. ethics. .

They include research design and ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, redundant publishing, plagiarism, and editor responsibilities, as well as media relations and advertising.

THE ETHICAL STATUS OF PEER REVIEW ALTERNATIVES

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW Double-blind reviewing isn't any better than single-blind reviewing in any manner.

The reviewer is still aware that he is working with competition and may feel compelled to correct all of the issues that have been double noted. blindness does not affect the The incentives for dishonest behaviour or the power to gain an advantage Contd.. . through the review system.

SINGLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW Peer review has all of the ethical issues that peer review has, plus one: the peer reviewer will be certain of the reviewed identity and may pursue a personal If the evaluated person is unlucky, his or her campaign work will based on past enmity. be reviewed by someone who actively dislikes him or her, resulting in aninextremely bad evaluation.

Personal assaults peer reviews were reported by 17.7% of respondents in the poll, as mentioned earlier Contd.. on ethical issues with peer review. .

PARTIAL OPEN REVIEW (SINGLEBLIND) The term "partial open review" refers to a review method in which the reviewer stays anonymous, but the review is made public.

The reader of an article is aware of the reviewer's viewpoints and may determine if the review is fair.

This is an improvement over the current method, which keeps both reviews and reviewers hidden.

Contd.. .

OPEN REVIEW (NO BLIND) An open peer to peer review system has several advantages, activity, one of which is that unethical they willif a reviewer professional engages in face consequences.

An open peer review is one in which neither the reviewer nor the reviewed are anonymous, and the reviews are made public.BLINDED OPEN REVIEW AUTHOR The reviewer is known to the reviewer, but the review is unknown to the reviewer in an honest review.

This makes it far less likely that the reviewer will review as part of write a biased retribution.

Unless textual evidence indicates otherwise, the reviewer cannot be confident that he is criticising the work of someone It's the polar oppositehe of hates. the typical evaluation, and it offers its own set of benefits.

CONCLUS I ON Peer review is a complex and multifaceted process, and it's quite conceivable that we overlooked some crucial aspects.

Peer review is not a stand-alone mechanism but an integral element of a complex, changing ecological system.

It's possible to apply what has been done to other peer reviews, such as grants and clinical trials.

Contact Us

UNITED KINGDOM +447424810299 INDIA +919884350006 EMAIL sales@pubrica.c om