Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

Commentary

Abstract

As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors’ suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors’ message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process—especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory—may constitute a violation of authors’ rights.

Keywords

Compromised trust Flexible ethics Lax selection Open versus traditional peer review Rules 

References

  1. Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 208–219. doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, D. B., Brown, A. W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530, 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ATS (The Annals of Thoracic Surgery). (2017). Guidelines for reviewers (and authors). http://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/ats/reviewerguidelines.pdf. 27 October, 2016.
  5. Barbash, F. (2015). Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/. 27 October, 2016.
  6. Bartoli, A., De Lorenzo, A., Medvet, E., & Tarlao, F. (2016). Your paper has been accepted, rejected, or whatever: Automatic generation of scientific paper reviews. In Availability, Reliability, and Security in Information Systems. (Vol. 9817 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 19–28). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45507-5.
  7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaway, E. (2015). Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions. Nature,. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202.Google Scholar
  9. Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters,. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw115.Google Scholar
  10. Earnshaw, J. J., Farndon, J. R., Guillou, P. J., Johnson, C. D., Murie, J. A., & Murray, G. D. (2000). A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 82, 133–135.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giordan, M., Csikasz-Nagy, A., Collings, A. M., & Vaggi, F. (2016). The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Research, 5, 683. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8452.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud: Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helton, M. L., & Balistreri, W. F. (2011). Peering into peer-review. Journal of Pediatrics, 159(1), 150–151. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. HLC (Higher Learning Commission). (2016). Determining qualified faculty through HLC’s criteria for accreditation and assumed practices. Guidelines for institutions and peer reviewers. http://download.hlcommission.org/FacultyGuidelines_2016_OPB.pdf. 27 October, 2016.
  16. Korkmaz, S. A. (2017). Retraction notice to “Diagnosis of cervical cancer cell taken from scanning electron and atomic force microscope images of the same patients using discrete wavelet entropy energy and Jensen Shannon, Hellinger, Triangle Measure classifier” [SAA 160 (2016) 39–49]. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 170, 267. doi:10.1016/j.saa.2016.06.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., Patel, J., & Moylan, E. C. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 5(9), e008707. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumar, M. (2009). A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4), 16.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luo, L., & Rubens, F. D. (2016). Traditional peer review and post-publication peer review. Perfusion, 31(6), 443–444. doi:10.1177/0267659116667265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy, E. (2015). The importance of ethical peer-review: Why do we ask authors to suggest reviewers anyway? Lipids, 50, 1165–1167. doi:10.1007/s11745-015-4094-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reller, T. (2016). Elsevier publishing— a look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-publishing-a-look-at-the-numbers-and-more. 27 October, 2016.
  24. Resnik, D. B. (2011). A troubled tradition: It’s time to rebuild trust among authors, editors and peer reviewers. American Scientist, 99(1), 24. doi:10.1511/2011.88.24.Google Scholar
  25. Rivara, F. P., Cummings, P., Ringold, S., Bergman, A. B., Joffe, A., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. Journal of Pediatrics, 151(2), 202–205. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scholarone (2012). Thomson Reuters Quantifies Asia’s Rise in Global Submission Rates to Academic Publishers. http://scholarone.com/about/press/globalsubrelease/. 27 October, 2016.
  27. Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 314–317. doi:10.1001/jama.295.3.314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112, 360–365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120838. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine, 12, 179. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), 6–15.Google Scholar
  32. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética 20(2): (in press).Google Scholar
  33. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine, 1(2), 214–215. doi:10.1515/jim-2016-0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2016). Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME, 4(1), 84–88. doi:10.17646/KOME.2016.16. (with erratum).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(1), 22–40. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Katavić, V. (2016). Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Tonks, A. (1995). Reviewers chosen by authors. British Medical Journal, 311, 210. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6999.210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wager, E., Parkin, E. C., & Tamber, P. S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4, 13. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-4-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kagawa-kenJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of DentistryJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan

Personalised recommendations