Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Editorial Board Self-Publishing Rates in Czech Economic Journals.Radek Zdeněk - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (2):669-682.
    This article investigates whether editorial board members of selected economic journals publish their research papers in their ‘own’ journal. Journals were selected from the Journal Citation Report® from the categories Business; Business, Finance; and Economics. Only research articles published between 2012 and 2015 were included in the analysis. We recorded ratios concerning the share of articles authored by editorial board members, the share of editorial board members publishing in their own journals and ratios representing their publication output. The average share (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):293-321.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication.Ehsan Roohi & Omid Mahian - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):809-812.
    The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings. Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study.Boris Kotchoubey, Sarah Bütof & Ranganatha Sitaram - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):829-835.
    A case of a particularly severe misbehavior in a review process is described. Two reviewers simply copied and pasted their critical comments from their previous reviews without reading the reviewed manuscript. The editor readily accepted the reviewers’ opinion and rejected the manuscript. These facts give rise to some general questions about possible factors affecting the ethical behavior of reviewers and editors, as well as possible countermeasures to prevent ethical violations.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Lemaster & Scott R. Glisson - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):189-197.
    Despite the presumed frequency of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting on the frequency and type of conflicts that occur, particularly with regard to the peer review of basic science applications. To address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences conducted a retrospective analysis of conflict of interest data from the peer review of 282 biomedical research applications via several onsite review panels. The overall conflicted-ness of these panels (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Aceil Al-Khatib & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):293-321.
    Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations