Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes

Shelomi, Matan

doi:10.3390/publications2020051

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also see instances of authors, reviewers and editors subverting and abusing the process, such as cases of authors rigging peer review 18,19 , reviewers (and editors) manipulating performance metrics by coercing citations [19][20][21][22] and editors preferentially publishing their research in the journals they edit. [23][24][25] Such examples, while perhaps isolated cases, are rhetorically powerful in creating distrust in the peer review process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Hamilton

Fraser

Hoekstra

et al. 2020

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Hamilton

Fraser

Hoekstra

et al. 2020

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[10] They charge publication fees but deliberately omit the peer review process. [11] Newly launched journals exploiting the gold open access (OA) model have a much stronger interest in accepting all submissions within a short term through soft/no peer review. [12] Peer review is the best way to ensure quality control of scientific material.…”

Section: Flourishing Of Predatory Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research publications are desirable for academic promotion in medical colleges as per the current rules of the Medical Council of India (MCI). These rules reflect an endeavour to improve the academic standards. We strongly believe that every medical college teacher should conduct true research and contribute to good peer-reviewed publications. However, it is felt that the MCI rule has the potential to lead to undesirable consequences, and the quality of teaching and learning could take a back-seat. There is an urgent need to adopt more objective criteria and better guidelines as followed by well-known global institutes. In our own country, the University Grants Commission has formulated specific guidelines for this purpose in the form of Academic Performance Indicators which, it appears, are not taken into consideration by the MCI. This article discusses the adverse impact of the rule and suggests ways for the adoption of a more scientific assessment system for faculty appointment and promotion.

show abstract

“…Scholars also point to examples of important scientific breakthroughs that were initially rejected following peer review, such as Rosalyn Yalow and Solomon Berson's creation of the radioimmunoassay [15], as well as peer-reviewed articles that were later retracted, such as the recent high-profile article in The Lancet that reported on the utility of chloroquine treatments for COVID-19 [16]. We also see instances of authors, reviewers and editors subverting and abusing the process, such as cases of authors gaming peer review [17,18], reviewers (and editors) manipulating performance metrics by coercing citations [18][19][20][21] and editors preferentially publishing their research in the journals they edit [22][23][24]. Such examples, while perhaps isolated cases, are rhetorically powerful in creating distrust in the peer review process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Hamilton¹,

Fraser²,

Hoekstra³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 journal editors of high-impact journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Editors were asked for details about peer review policies and practices at their journals, as well as their views on five publication ethics issues. Key findings included: almost half of surveyed journals checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, adoption of “open” policies was uncommon and a fifth of editors reported that disagreement with a reviewer’s recommendation would be grounds for editing a report (with or without the reviewer’s permission). The majority of editors expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to raw data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their journals and replication studies. These results highlight differences in peer review policies across journals and provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, and transparency in editorial and publishing policy.

show abstract

Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes

Cited by 17 publications

References 38 publications

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?

Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About