How to deal with improper or unethical peer review – Pubrica
16
How to Deal With Improper or Unethical Peer Review An Academic presentation by Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica Group: www.pubrica.com Email: [email protected]
-
Upload
pubricahealthcare -
Category
Services
-
view
1 -
download
0
description
Peer review is now nearly universal in scholarly publications, and it is regarded as a necessary component of the publishing process. Peer review is the foundation of the publishing system and is at the core of the editorial process.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3DVjhuE
For our services: https://pubrica.com/sevices/research-services/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: [email protected]
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
Transcript of How to deal with improper or unethical peer review – Pubrica
How to Deal WithImproper orUnethical PeerReviewAn Academic presentation byDr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, PubricaGroup: www.pubrica.comEmail: [email protected]
Today's DiscussionOutlin
eFunctionality and Quality of Peer ReviewEthical Responsibilities of Editors andReviewersThe Ethical Status of Peer ReviewAlternativesConclusion
FUNCTIONALITY ANDQUALITY OF PEER REVIEWPeer review is now nearly universal in
scholarlypublications, and it is regarded as a necessarycomponent of the publishing process.There is no agreement on what peer review is,what it is for, what distinguishes a 'good' reviewfrom a 'poor' review, or how even to begin to define'quality review.Some publishers may have previously acquired,processed, and analysed peer review datainternally to monitor and improve their processes.
Contd...
This may be a significant file drawer issue, as such information isonly of little utility if solely utilised for personal reasons. Empiricaldata on a variety of aspects of the peer review process might beobtained, with different degrees of difficulty, to understand betterhow it works, including:
The number of referee reports per article, how many rounds ofpeer review is there?Length of referee reportsDuring the evaluation process, was code, data, and documentsmade available? Contd..
.
Was any code, data, or materials accessible forinspection/analysis during the process?Who decides whether the reports should beavailable to the public when these choices aremade, and what should be contained in them?(e.g. editorial comments)The percentage of papers that receive "deskrejects" versus "peer review rejections."What happens to submissions that are submitted?
Table 1: Journal peer-review survey data
ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OFEDITORS AND REVIEWERS
The Committee on Publishing Ethical (COPE)was established in 1997 to address researchand publication ethics violations and providea code of conduct for biomedical journals.It provides standards for writers, editors,editorial board members, readers, journalowners, and publishers to establish the bestpractice in scientific publishing ethics.Contd..
.
They include research design and ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflictsof interest, peer review, redundant publishing, plagiarism, and editor responsibilities, aswell as media relations and advertising.
THE ETHICAL STATUS OF PEERREVIEW ALTERNATIVESDOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW
Double-blind reviewing isn't any better than single-blindreviewing in any manner.The reviewer is still aware that he is working with competitionand may feel compelled to correct all of the issues that havebeen noted.The double blindness does not affect the incentives fordishonest behaviour or the power to gain an advantagethrough the review system.
Contd...
SINGLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW
Peer review has all of the ethical issues that peerreview has, plus one: the peer reviewer will be certainof the reviewed identity and may pursue a personalcampaign based on past enmity.If the evaluated person is unlucky, his or her work willbe reviewed by someone who actively dislikes him orher, resulting in an extremely bad evaluation.Personal assaults in peer reviews were reported by17.7% of respondents in the poll, as mentioned earlieron ethical issues with peer review. Contd..
.
PARTIAL OPEN REVIEW (SINGLE-BLIND)
The term "partial open review" refers to a review method inwhich the reviewer stays anonymous, but the review is madepublic.The reader of an article is aware of the reviewer's viewpointsand may determine if the review is fair.This is an improvement over the current method, which keepsboth reviews and reviewers hidden.
Contd...
OPEN REVIEW (NO BLIND)
An open peer to peer review system has severaladvantages, one of which is that if a reviewer engages inunethical activity, they will faceconsequences.
professional
An open peer review is one in which neither the reviewernor the reviewed are anonymous, and the reviews aremade public.OPEN REVIEW BLINDED
AUTHORThe reviewer is known to the reviewer, but the review isunknown to the reviewer in an honest review.
This makes it far less likely that the reviewer willwrite a biased review as part of retribution.Unless textual evidence indicates otherwise, thereviewer cannot be confident that he is criticisingthe work of someone he hates.It's the polar opposite of the typical evaluation, andit offers its own set of benefits.
CONCLUS I ON
Peer review is a complex and multifaceted process, andit's quite conceivable that we overlooked some crucialaspects.Peer review is not a stand-alone mechanism but anintegral element of a complex, changing ecologicalsystem.It's possible to apply what has been done to other peerreviews, such as grants and clinical trials.
