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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Allison, D. B., Brown, A. W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530, 27–29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Callaway, E. (2015). Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions. Nature,. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202.
Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters,. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw115.
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.
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.
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.
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud: Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kumar, M. (2009). A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4), 16.
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.
Luo, L., & Rubens, F. D. (2016). Traditional peer review and post-publication peer review. Perfusion, 31(6), 443–444. doi:10.1177/0267659116667265.
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.
Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a.
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.
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.
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.
Scholarone (2012). Thomson Reuters Quantifies Asia’s Rise in Global Submission Rates to Academic Publishers. http://scholarone.com/about/press/globalsubrelease/. 27 October, 2016.
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.
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.
Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120838. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120838.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Katavić, V. (2016). Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics (in press).
Tonks, A. (1995). Reviewers chosen by authors. British Medical Journal, 311, 210. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6999.210.
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.
Warne, V. (2015). Peer review week arrives! https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2015/09/28/peer-review-week-arrives?referrer=exchanges. 27 October, 2016.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers and the SEE Editor-in-Chief, for valuable and useful input and criticism that allowed for the considerable improvement of this commentary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Editor’s note It is to be noted that Science and Engineering Ethics does not mandate that authors should suggest reviewers, rather it suggests that 6 reviewers may be delineated and that such reviewers may or may not be contacted by the Editor. Also the Editor normally sends each paper to reviewers who are generally not resident in the country in which the author resides. This guideline does not apply to the USA or some other countries with significant scholarship in the area of this journal. In the case when the Editor does not receive any reviews after a few weeks the papers are sent to additional reviewers until the Editor is satisfied that the paper has received a pertinent and helpful set of comments that may be used for the improvement of the paper. It should be noted that many of the authors of manuscripts for this journal thank the reviewers for helping them produce an improved paper. The reviewers for this journal do not know the names or institutions of the authors and the names of the reviewers are not made known to the authors (this constitutes double-blind review). The Science and Engineering Ethics Editors-in-Chief choose reviewers from the Assistant Editors and the International Editorial Advisory Board as well from their experience with colleagues whom they meet and with whom they correspond.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Al-Khatib, A. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 275–285 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6