Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
- Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 300–303. CrossRef
- Davidoff, F. (1998). Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 66–68.
- Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ to peer review. British Medical Journal, 318, 4–5.
- Mulligan, A. (2005). Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology, 41, 135–141. CrossRef
- Schroter, S., et al. (2004). Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? British Medical Journal, 328, 673–675. CrossRef
- Benos, D., et al. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physics Education, 27, 47–52. CrossRef
- 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.
- Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible-openness, accountability, and credit. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2762–2765. CrossRef
- Fabiato, A. (1994). Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovascular Research, 28, 1134–1139. CrossRef
- Dalton, R. (2001). Peers under pressure. Nature, 413, 102–104. CrossRef
- Lawrence, P. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261. CrossRef
- Anonymous. (2001). Bad peer reviewers. Nature, 413, 93.
- Regehr, G., & Bordage, G. (2006). To blind or not to blind? Medical Education, 40, 832–839. CrossRef
- Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 14, Issue 3 , pp 305-310
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Journal peer review