Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study
- PMID: 18311477
- PMCID: PMC2642979
- DOI: 10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4
Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study
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.
References
-
- Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:300–303. - PubMed
-
- Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998;128:66–68. - PubMed
-
- Mulligan A. Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology. 2005;41:135–141. - PubMed
-
- Schroter S, et al. Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? British Medical Journal. 2004;328:673–675. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
