Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
- 244 Downloads
Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data (as is increasingly required) to a journal. When researchers submit to journals, they entrust their findings and ideas to editors and peer reviewers who are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review. Inherent trust in peer review is built on the ethical conduct of authors, editors and reviewers, and on the respect of this confidentiality. If such confidentiality is breached by unethical reviewers who might steal or plagiarize the authors’ ideas, researchers will lose trust in peer review and may resist submitting their findings to that journal. Science loses as a result, scientific and medical advances slow down, knowledge may become scarce, and it is unlikely that increasing bias in the literature will be detected or eliminated. In such a climate, society will ultimately be deprived from scientific and medical advances. Despite a rise in documented cases of abused peer review, there is still a relative lack of qualitative and quantitative studies on reviewer-related misconduct, most likely because evidence is difficult to come by. Our paper presents an assessment of editors’ and reviewers’ responsibilities in preserving the confidentiality of manuscripts during the peer review process, in response to a 2016 case of intellectual property theft by a reviewer. Our main objectives are to propose additional measures that would offer protection of authors’ intellectual ideas from predatory reviewers, and increase researchers’ awareness of the responsible reviewing of journal articles and reporting of biomedical research.
KeywordsTrust Confidentiality Ethics Peer review thieves Plagiarism
Al-Khatib is a participant in the Research Ethics Education Program in Jordan supported by Grant #5R25TW010026-02 from the Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The content and opinions are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Fogarty International Center or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Ambrose, C. T. (2014). Plagiarism of ideas. Benjamin Rush and Charles Caldwell—a student-mentor dispute. The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha-Honor Medical Society, 77(1), 14. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/microbio_facpub/37
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (2013). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (2016). A short guide to ethical editing for new editors (version 2). https://publicationethics.org/files/A_Short_Guide_to_Ethical_Editing.pdf. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Commons, J. R. (1924). Legal foundations of capitalism. Transaction Publishers. https://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/commons/LegalFoundationsCapitalism.pdf. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Council of Science Editors (CSE). (2012). White paper on publication ethics. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012. Update. 2012. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Curry, S. (2016). Zika virus initiative reveals deeper malady in scientific publishing. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/feb/16/zika-virus-scientific-publishing-malady. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Finelli, C., Crispino, P., Gioia, C., LaSala, N., D’amico, L., La Grotta, M., et al. (2016). Notice of retraction: The improvement of large high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particle levels, and presumably HDL metabolism, depend on effects of low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss. EXCLI Journal, 15, 570. doi: 10.17179/excli2015-642. (Retraction of: Finelli, C., Crispino, P., Gioia, C., LaSala, N., D’amico, L., La Grotta, M., Miro, O., Colarusso, D. EXCLI Journal, 15, 166–176).Google Scholar
- Harnad, S. (1998). The invisible hand of peer review. Nature Web Matters. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Hartzog, W. N. (2011). Taken in context: An examination of judicial determinations regarding implied obligations of confidentiality. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 255. Order No. 3495711, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/923816303?accountid=31943. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Heywood, E. (2008). Confidentiality, libel, peer review and the law. The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association, 17(4), 168–170.Google Scholar
- ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). (2017). Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Jøsang, A., Keser, C., & Dimitrakos, T. (2005). Can we manage trust? Trust Management, 13–29. http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/42fc/e7b1300d2b5aed1e3e7e633c1d34f721910e.pdf. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- McCook, A. (2017). Watch out for predatory journals, and consider retract/replace, suggests medical journal group. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/13/watch-predatory-journals-consider-retractreplace-suggests-medical-journal-group/. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Moed, H. F., Colledge, L., Reedijk, J., Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Plume, A., et al. (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics, 92(2), 367–376. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0679-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Open Society Institute, Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Read the budapest open access initiative. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Price, A. (2006). Cases of plagiarism handled by the United States Office of Research Integrity 1992–2005 (pp. 46–56). Plagiary: Cross Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification.Google Scholar
- Rainbolt, G. (2006). The concept of rights (1st ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Rockwell, S. (2006). Ethics of peer review: A guide for manuscript reviewers. http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/yale/prethics.pdf. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.
- Stewart Jr., C. N. (2011). Peer review and the ethics of privileged information. Research Ethics for Scientists: A Companion for Students. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 135–146. doi: 10.1002/9781119978862.ch10
- 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
- Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015b). Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology, 1(2), 34–37.Google Scholar
- Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2017). An interview with Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva: Insight into improving the efficiency of the publication process. North American Journal of Psychology, 19(2), 325–338.Google Scholar
- Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Al-Khatib, A., & Dobránszki, J. (2017a). Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: Identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(4), 1213–1226. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Triggle, C. R., & Triggle, D. J. (2007). What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?”. Vascular Health and Risk Management, 3(1), 39–53.Google Scholar
- WAME (World Association of Medical Editors). (2015). Recommendations on publication ethics policies for medical journals. http://www.wame.org/about/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie. Last Accessed 13 Aug 2017.