Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310 (2008)
This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review.
|Keywords||Journal peer review Ethics Bias Reform|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study.Boris Kotchoubey, Sarah Bütof & Ranganatha Sitaram - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):829-835.
Similar books and articles
Religiosity, Ethical Ideology, and Intentions to Report a Peer's Wrongdoing.Tim Barnett, Ken Bass & Gene Brown - 1996 - Journal of Business Ethics 15 (11):1161 - 1174.
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #389,743 of 2,146,978 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #385,507 of 2,146,978 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.