How to Deal With Improper or Unethical Peer ReviewAn Academic presentation by

Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica

Group: www.pubrica.com

Email: sales@pubrica.com

Today's Discussion

Outline

Functionality and Quality of Peer Review

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and

Reviewers

The Ethical Status of Peer Review

Alternatives

Conclusion

Peer review is now nearly universal in scholarly

publications, and it is regarded as a necessary

component of the publishing process.

There is no agreement on what peer review is,

what it is for, what distinguishes a 'good' review

from a 'poor' review, or how even to begin to define

'quality review.

Some publishers may have previously acquired,

processed, and analysed peer review data

internally to monitor and improve their processes.

Contd...

FUNCTIONALITY AND

QUALITY OF PEER REVIEW

This may be a significant file drawer issue, as such information is

only of little utility if solely utilised for personal reasons. Empirical

data on a variety of aspects of the peer review process might be

obtained, with different degrees of difficulty, to understand better

how it works, including:

The number of referee reports per article, how many rounds of

peer review is there?

Length of referee reports

During the evaluation process, was code, data, and documents

made available?Contd...

Was any code, data, or materials accessible for

inspection/analysis during the process?

Who decides whether the reports should be

available to the public when these choices are

made, and what should be contained in them?

(e.g. editorial comments)

The percentage of papers that receive "desk

rejects" versus "peer review rejections."

What happens to submissions that are submitted?

Table 1: Journal peer-review survey data

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF

EDITORS AND REVIEWERS

The Committee on Publishing Ethical (COPE)

was established in 1997 to address research

and publication ethics violations and provide

a code of conduct for biomedical journals.

It provides standards for writers, editors,

editorial board members, readers, journal

owners, and publishers to establish the best

practice in scientific publishing ethics.

Contd...

They include research design and ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflicts

of interest, peer review, redundant publishing, plagiarism, and editor responsibilities, as

well as media relations and advertising.

THE ETHICAL STATUS OFPEER

REVIEW ALTERNATIVES

single-blind

The reviewer is still aware that he is working with competition

and may feel compelled to correct all of the issues that have

been noted.

The double blindness

dishonest behaviour or

does not affect

the power to

the incentives for

gain an advantage

Contd...

through the review system.

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Double-blind reviewing isn't any better than

reviewing in any manner.

SINGLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Peer review has all of the ethical issues that peer

review has, plus one: the peer reviewer will be certain

of the reviewed identity and may pursue a personal

campaign based on past enmity.

If the evaluated person is unlucky, his or her work will

be reviewed by someone who actively dislikes him or

her, resulting in an extremely bad evaluation.

Personal assaults in peer reviews were reported by

17.7% of respondents in the poll, as mentioned earlier

on ethical issues with peer review.

Contd...

PARTIAL OPEN REVIEW (SINGLE-BLIND)

The term "partial open review" refers to a review method in

which the reviewer stays anonymous, but the review is made

public.

The reader of an article is aware of the reviewer's viewpoints

and may determine if the review is fair.

This is an improvement over the current method, which keeps

both reviews and reviewers hidden.

Contd...

OPEN REVIEW (NO BLIND)

An open peer to peer review system has several

advantages, one of which is that if a reviewer engages in

unethical activity, they will face professional

consequences.

An open peer review is one in which neither the reviewer

nor the reviewed are anonymous, and the reviews are

made public.

OPEN REVIEW BLINDED AUTHOR

The reviewer is known to the reviewer, but the review is

unknown to the reviewer in an honest review.

This makes it far less likely that the reviewer will

write a biased review as part of retribution.

Unless textual evidence indicates otherwise, the

reviewer cannot be confident that he is criticising

the work of someone he hates.

It's the polar opposite of the typical evaluation, and

it offers its own set of benefits.

CONCLUSION

Peer review is a complex and multifaceted process, and

it's quite conceivable that we overlooked some crucial

aspects.

Peer review is not a stand-alone mechanism but an

integral element of a complex, changing ecological

system.

It's possible to apply what has been done to other peer

reviews, such as grants and clinical trials.

UNITED KINGDOM

+44- 7424810299

INDIA

+91-9884350006

EMAIL

sales@pubrica.com

Contact Us