A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review

Peer review is the most important aspect of reputable journals. Without it, we would be unsure about whether the material published was as valid and reliable as is possible. However, with the advent of the Internet, scientific literature has now become subject to a relatively new phenomenon: fake peer reviews. Some dishonest researchers have been manipulating the peer review process to publish what are often inferior papers. There are even papers that explain how to do it. This paper discusses one of those methods and how editors can defeat it by using a special review ID. This method is easy to understand and can be added to current peer review systems easily.     

Medical journals' conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews

The purpose of the study was to assess medical journals’ conflicts of interest in the publication of book reviews. We examined book reviews published in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (N=1,876) in five leading medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. The main outcome measure was journal publication of reviews of books that had been published by the journal’s own publisher, that had been edited or authored by a lead editor of the journal, or that posed another conflict of interest. We also surveyed the editors-in-chief of the five journals about their policies on these conflicts of interests. During the study period, four of the five journals published 30 book reviews presenting a conflict of interest: nineteen by the BMJ, five by the Annals, four by JAMA, and two by the Lancet. These reviews represent 5.8%, 2.7%, 0.7%, and 0.7%, respectively, of all book reviews published by the journals. These four journals, respectively, published reviews of 11.9%, 25.0%, 0.9%, and 1.0% of all medical books published by the journals’ publishers. Only one of the 30 book reviews included a disclosure statement addressing the conflict of interest. None of the journals had a written policy pertaining to the conflicts of interest assessed in this study, although four reported having unwritten policies. We recommend that scientific journals and associations representing journal editors develop policies on conflicts of interest pertaining to book reviews. Disclosure: R.M. Davis was North American editor of the BMJ from 1998 to 2001, and is a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, which publishes JAMA. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of any organization with which the authors have been affiliated.     

Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review

This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and resolve efficiently disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. The framework is called a scientific dialectical brief. In this framework, differences among authors and reviewers are formatted into specific assertions and the support each party provides for its position. A literature review suggests that scientists use five main types of support; empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings, and status. It is suggested that the scientific dialectical brief format can streamline the review process by facilitating rapid differentiation between stronger and weaker support, so that valuable time can be focused on the better-substantiated claims. The paper concludes with some suggestions for implementation. The author researches, lectures and publishes in the area of physical and social aspects of environmental quality. He is also a practicing architect. This paper is based on a presentation at a workshop, “Advances in Peer Review Research”, American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting, Baltimore, MD, February 9, 1996.     

Predictors of Article Impact in Suicidology: The Bereavement Literature,A Research Note

Citation analysis has been neglected in suicidology. The present note applies a mixed‐methods approach to both test and suggest hypotheses for the variation in article impact in the bereavement literature. One hundred three articles from three core suicidology journals met the criteria for inclusion in the investigation. Citations to the articles were obtained from the Web of Science. Predictor variables included structural characteristics of the author (e.g., gender) and the article itself (e.g., years since publication). A multivariate regression analysis determined that, controlling for the other variables, the most important predictor of citations was the review article (β = .461), followed by year of publication (β = ?.414), the multiauthored article (β = .302), publication in Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior (SLTB) (β = .161), and male gender (β = .156). The 12 most cited articles were published between 1979 and 2004 in SLTB. The majority of these papers was written by males, were U.S. authors, and had more than one author. Four of the most cited articles were reviews. The study concludes that structural characteristics of articles and authors explained 41% of the variance in citations. The qualitative analysis determined that review papers, and papers on characteristics of suicide bereavement and psychological autopsies have been most frequently cited. Replication studies are needed for other subfields of suicidology.     

Editors As Authors: Publication Trends Of Articles Authored By JABA Editors.

Journal editors are gatekeepers; they review and shape the work of others, and influence the journal's direction and quality. They also contribute to the body of knowledge within a field as authors. The author role of editors of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis is described. Annual publication rates of the 55 former and current editors and associate editors are presented and discussed.     

Guidelines Versus Practices in Cross-Lingual Assessment: A Disconcerting Disconnect

The International Test Commission's Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (2010) provide important guidance on developing and evaluating tests for use across languages. These guidelines are widely applauded, but the degree to which they are followed in practice is unknown. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of published articles to determine whether the methodologies related to test adaptation and evaluation of cross-lingual measurement bias have improved since the initial publication of the Guidelines. Results demonstrated that although reporting reliability estimates and statistically analyzing construct equivalence improved since publication of the Guidelines, the majority of test development and validation practices in the published literature have not embraced the recommendations put forth by the International Test Commission. Overall, these findings call into question many of the inferences derived from cross-linguistic comparisons and clearly signal a need for better dissemination mechanisms of the Guidelines.     

Peer review and innovation

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10–20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.     

The British Journal of Psychology centenary: A preliminary content survey and its problems

The preliminary findings are reported of a review of the contents of the British Journal of Psychology 1904–2003 undertaken to mark the journal's centenary. This identifies (a) the top 11 categories of paper published and their patterns of distribution, (b) an apparent change in the nature of papers published after 1983, (c) the overall pattern of category‐introduction, showing a dramatic change in 1965 and (d) a provisional typology of the principal patterns of distribution over time. Major conceptual and practical problems arising in the categorization of papers, and their implications, are discussed. Some reflections are offered on the possible value of research of this kind and on the nature of the journal itself.     

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors’ good judgment and the publisher’s procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience.     

ERRATA

As mentioned in the editorial, we publish here five papers introducing the small group discussions. The authors of these papers and the editorial board wish to emphasize that these papers were not presented with a view to publication, and thus they do not pretend to be independent and original contributions.

However, the editorial board regarded these papers as valuable in various ways, and they are also illustrative of some of the variations of the theme of the congress. The papers are published here in only a slightly revised form.     

Is There a Role for Publication Consultants and How Should Their Contribution be Recognized?

When a scientific paper, dissertation or thesis is published the author(s) have a duty to report who has contributed to the work. This recognition can take several forms such as authorship, relevant acknowledgments and by citing previous work. There is a growing industry where publication consultants will work with authors, research groups or even institutions to help get their work published, or help submit their dissertation/thesis. This help can range from proof reading, data collection, analysis (including statistics), helping with the literature review and identifying suitable journals/conferences. In this opinion article we question whether these external services are required, given that institutions should provide this support and that experienced researchers should be qualified to carry out these activities. If these services are used, we argue that their use should at least be made transparent either by the consultant being an author on the paper, or by being acknowledged on the paper, dissertation or thesis. We also argue that publication consultants should provide an annual return that details the papers, dissertations and thesis that they have consulted on.