1 / 16

How to deal with improper or unethical peer review – Pubrica

Peer review is now nearly universal in scholarly publications, and it is regarded as a necessary component of the publishing process. Peer review is the foundation of the publishing system and is at the core of the editorial process.<br>Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3DVjhuE<br>For our services: https://pubrica.com/sevices/research-services/<br>

pubrica
Download Presentation

How to deal with improper or unethical peer review – Pubrica

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HowtoDealWith Improperor UnethicalPeer Review AnAcademicpresentationby Dr.NancyAgnes,Head,TechnicalOperations,Pubrica Group:www.pubrica.com Email:sales@pubrica.com

  2. Today'sDiscussion Outline FunctionalityandQualityofPeerReview EthicalResponsibilitiesofEditorsand Reviewers TheEthicalStatusofPeerReview Alternatives Conclusion

  3. FUNCTIONALITYAND QUALITYOFPEERREVIEW Peerreviewisnownearlyuniversalinscholarly publications,anditisregardedasanecessary componentofthepublishingprocess. Thereisnoagreementonwhatpeerreviewis, whatitisfor,whatdistinguishesa'good'review froma'poor'review,orhoweventobegintodefine 'qualityreview. Somepublishersmayhavepreviouslyacquired, processed,andanalysedpeerreviewdata internallytomonitorandimprovetheirprocesses. Contd...

  4. Thismaybeasignificantfiledrawerissue,assuchinformationis onlyoflittleutilityifsolelyutilisedforpersonalreasons.Empirical dataonavarietyofaspectsofthepeerreviewprocessmightbe obtained,withdifferentdegreesofdifficulty,tounderstandbetter howitworks,including: Thenumberofrefereereportsperarticle,howmanyroundsof peerreviewisthere? Lengthofrefereereports Duringtheevaluationprocess,wascode,data,anddocuments madeavailable? Contd...

  5. Wasanycode,data,ormaterialsaccessiblefor inspection/analysisduringtheprocess? Whodecideswhetherthereportsshouldbe availabletothepublicwhenthesechoicesare made,andwhatshouldbecontainedinthem? (e.g.editorialcomments) Thepercentageofpapersthatreceive"desk rejects"versus"peerreviewrejections." Whathappenstosubmissionsthataresubmitted?

  6. Table1:Journalpeer-reviewsurveydata

  7. ETHICALRESPONSIBILITIESOF EDITORSANDREVIEWERS TheCommitteeonPublishingEthical(COPE) wasestablishedin1997toaddressresearch andpublicationethicsviolationsandprovide acodeofconductforbiomedicaljournals. Itprovidesstandardsforwriters,editors, editorialboardmembers,readers,journal owners,andpublisherstoestablishthebest practiceinscientificpublishingethics. Contd...

  8. Theyincluderesearchdesignandethicalapproval,dataanalysis,authorship,conflictsTheyincluderesearchdesignandethicalapproval,dataanalysis,authorship,conflicts ofinterest,peerreview,redundantpublishing,plagiarism,andeditorresponsibilities,as wellasmediarelationsandadvertising.

  9. THEETHICALSTATUSOFPEER REVIEWALTERNATIVES DOUBLE-BLINDPEERREVIEW Double-blindreviewingisn'tanybetterthansingle-blind reviewinginanymanner. Thereviewerisstillawarethatheisworkingwithcompetition andmayfeelcompelledtocorrectalloftheissuesthathave beennoted. Thedoubleblindnessdoesnotaffecttheincentivesfor dishonestbehaviourorthepowertogainanadvantage throughthereviewsystem. Contd...

  10. SINGLE-BLINDPEERREVIEW Peerreviewhasalloftheethicalissuesthatpeer reviewhas,plusone:thepeerreviewerwillbecertain ofthereviewedidentityandmaypursueapersonal campaignbasedonpastenmity. Iftheevaluatedpersonisunlucky,hisorherworkwill bereviewedbysomeonewhoactivelydislikeshimor her,resultinginanextremelybadevaluation. Personalassaultsinpeerreviewswerereportedby 17.7%ofrespondentsinthepoll,asmentionedearlier onethicalissueswithpeerreview. Contd...

  11. PARTIALOPENREVIEW(SINGLE-BLIND) Theterm"partialopenreview"referstoareviewmethodin whichthereviewerstaysanonymous,butthereviewismade public. Thereaderofanarticleisawareofthereviewer'sviewpoints andmaydetermineifthereviewisfair. Thisisanimprovementoverthecurrentmethod,whichkeeps bothreviewsandreviewershidden. Contd...

  12. OPENREVIEW(NOBLIND) Anopenpeertopeerreviewsystemhasseveral advantages,oneofwhichisthatifareviewerengagesin unethicalactivity,theywillface consequences. professional Anopenpeerreviewisoneinwhichneitherthereviewer northereviewedareanonymous,andthereviewsare madepublic. OPENREVIEWBLINDEDAUTHOR Thereviewerisknowntothereviewer,butthereviewis unknowntothereviewerinanhonestreview.

  13. Thismakesitfarlesslikelythatthereviewerwill writeabiasedreviewaspartofretribution. Unlesstextualevidenceindicatesotherwise,the reviewercannotbeconfidentthatheiscriticising theworkofsomeonehehates. It'sthepolaroppositeofthetypicalevaluation,and itoffersitsownsetofbenefits.

  14. CONCLUSION Peerreviewisacomplexandmultifacetedprocess,and it'squiteconceivablethatweoverlookedsomecrucial aspects. Peerreviewisnotastand-alonemechanismbutan integralelementofacomplex,changingecological system. It'spossibletoapplywhathasbeendonetootherpeer reviews,suchasgrantsandclinicaltrials.

  15. ContactUs UNITEDKINGDOM +44-7424810299 INDIA +91-9884350006 EMAIL sales@pubrica.com

More Related