Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study

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.

[1]  D. Rennie Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. , 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[2]  R Smith,et al.  Opening up BMJ peer review , 1999, BMJ.

[3]  Rex Dalton,et al.  Peers under pressure , 2001, Nature.

[4]  P. Lawrence The politics of publication , 2003, Nature.

[5]  Glenn Regehr,et al.  To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer , 2006, Medical education.

[6]  F. Godlee Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. , 2002, JAMA.

[7]  J. Carpenter,et al.  Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Frank Davidoff Improving peer review: who's responsible? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  A. Mulligan,et al.  Is peer review in crisis? , 2005, Oral oncology.

[10]  Dale J Benos,et al.  How to review a paper. , 2003, Advances in physiology education.

[11]  F. Davidoff Masking, Blinding, and Peer Review: The Blind Leading the Blinded , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.