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

被引:0
|
作者
David B. Resnik
Christina Gutierrez-Ford
Shyamal Peddada
机构
[1] NIEHS/NIH,
来源
关键词
Journal peer review; Ethics; Bias; Reform;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:305 / 310
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study
    Resnik, David B.
    Gutierrez-Ford, Christina
    Peddada, Shyamal
    [J]. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2008, 14 (03) : 305 - 310
  • [2] Ethical issues in journal peer-review
    Corlett J.A.
    [J]. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2005, 2 (4) : 355 - 366
  • [3] Scientific Research Problems with peer review
    Henderson, Mark
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340 : c1409
  • [4] A noise audit of the peer review of a scientific article: a WPOM journal case study
    Bonavia, Tomas
    Marin-Garcia, Juan A.
    [J]. WPOM-WORKING PAPERS ON OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2023, 14 (02): : 137 - 166
  • [5] Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal
    Snell, L
    Spencer, J
    [J]. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2005, 39 (01) : 90 - 97
  • [6] Open peer review: the point of view of scientific journal editors
    Abadal, Ernest
    Melero, Remedios
    [J]. JLIS.IT, 2023, 14 (01): : 60 - 70
  • [7] An international peer-review system for a Chinese scientific journal
    Zhang, YH
    Yuan, YC
    Jiang, YF
    [J]. LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2003, 16 (02) : 91 - 94
  • [8] Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data
    Lee, Carole J.
    Moher, David
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2017, 357 (6348) : 256 - 257
  • [9] On the effectiveness of the scientific peer-review system: a case study of the Journal of High Energy Physics
    Sikdar, Sandipan
    Tehria, Paras
    Marsili, Matteo
    Ganguly, Niloy
    Mukherjee, Animesh
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON DIGITAL LIBRARIES, 2020, 21 (02) : 93 - 107
  • [10] On the effectiveness of the scientific peer-review system: a case study of the Journal of High Energy Physics
    Sandipan Sikdar
    Paras Tehria
    Matteo Marsili
    Niloy Ganguly
    Animesh Mukherjee
    [J]. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2020, 21 : 93 - 107