Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study |
| |
Authors: | David B. Resnik Christina Gutierrez-Ford Shyamal Peddada |
| |
Affiliation: | NIEHS/NIH, Mail Drop NH 06, Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA, resnikd@niehs.nih.gov. |
| |
Abstract: | 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 |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|