Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Sep;14(3):305-10.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4. Epub 2008 Mar 1.

Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study

Affiliations

Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study

David B Resnik et al. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:300–303. - PubMed
    1. Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: The blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998;128:66–68. - PubMed
    1. Smith R. Opening up BMJ to peer review. British Medical Journal. 1999;318:4–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mulligan A. Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology. 2005;41:135–141. - PubMed
    1. Schroter S, et al. Improving peer review: Who’s responsible? British Medical Journal. 2004;328:673–675. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources