Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 305–310 | Cite as

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

  • David B. Resnik
  • Christina Gutierrez-Ford
  • Shyamal Peddada
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Journal peer review Ethics Bias Reform 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 300–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davidoff, F. (1998). Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 66–68.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ to peer review. British Medical Journal, 318, 4–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mulligan, A. (2005). Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology, 41, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schroter, S., et al. (2004). Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? British Medical Journal, 328, 673–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benos, D., et al. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physics Education, 27, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible-openness, accountability, and credit. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2762–2765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabiato, A. (1994). Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovascular Research, 28, 1134–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dalton, R. (2001). Peers under pressure. Nature, 413, 102–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lawrence, P. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anonymous. (2001). Bad peer reviewers. Nature, 413, 93.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regehr, G., & Bordage, G. (2006). To blind or not to blind? Medical Education, 40, 832–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Resnik
    • 1
  • Christina Gutierrez-Ford
    • 1
  • Shyamal Peddada
    • 1
  1. 1.NIEHS/NIHResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations