Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1603–1610 | Cite as

A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review

  • Mehdi DadkhahEmail author
  • Mohsen Kahani
  • Glenn Borchardt


Peer review is the most important aspect of reputable journals. Without it, we would be unsure about whether the material published was as valid and reliable as is possible. However, with the advent of the Internet, scientific literature has now become subject to a relatively new phenomenon: fake peer reviews. Some dishonest researchers have been manipulating the peer review process to publish what are often inferior papers. There are even papers that explain how to do it. This paper discusses one of those methods and how editors can defeat it by using a special review ID. This method is easy to understand and can be added to current peer review systems easily.


Peer review Fabricated peer review Fake peer review Academic misconduct Academic ethics Integrity of peer review 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest



  1. Basnet, R. B., Mukkamala, S., & Sung, A. H. (2008). Detection of phishing attacks: A machine learning approach. Soft Computing Applications in Industry, 226, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beall, J. (2016). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(10), 1511–1513. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016). Hackers spy scientists. Indian Pediatrics, 53(11), 1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Identity theft in the academic world leads to junk science. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dileep Kumar, J., Srikanth, V., & Tejeswini, L. (2016). Email phishing attack mitigation using server side email addon. Indian Journal of Science & Technology, 9(19), 1–5. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i19/91161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinev, T. (2006). Why spoofing is serious internet fraud. Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 76–82. doi: 10.1145/1164394.1164398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamid, I. R. A., Abawajy, J., & Kim, T.-H. (2013). Using feature selection and classification scheme for automating phishing email detection. Studies in Informatics and Control, 22(1), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(25), 2393–2395. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rao, R. S., & Ali, S. T. (2015). A computer vision technique to detect phishing attacks. In Paper presented at the communication systems and network technologies (CSNT), 2015 fifth international conference on.Google Scholar
  10. Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Should authors be requested to suggest peer reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran
  2. 2.WTLabFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran
  3. 3.Progressive Science InstituteBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations