Editorial: Why Some Authors Make Bad Choices—Peer Review for Hire and Other Sad Stories

Beadling, Lee; Leopold, Seth S.

doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4356-0

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The publishers in question ultimately issued retractions for such manuscripts which had been subject to peer review fraud. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Another related variant of peer review fraud is that for manuscript submission via email, wherein the authors suggest names of scientists for reviewing their manuscript, create fake profiles of such scientists with fake email addresses, promote such fake profiles by manipulating the search algorithms of commonly used online search engines, and ultimately provide favourable reviews for their manuscripts using these fake email addresses. 35 Apart from the above described types of reviewer identity fraud, reports also exist of editor's journal accounts being hacked to generate favourable decisions for manuscripts.…”

Section: Peer Review Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.

show abstract

Section: Peer Review Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of studies suggest that poor publication practices are more prevalent in the Asia-Pacific region compared with other regions, particularly North America and Europe [7–12], although such assertions have been questioned [13, 14]. Several factors may influence adherence to ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the ubiquitous pressure to publish, unscrupulous providers of editing or publishing services preying on such pressure, language barriers, cultural practices and/or an absence of awareness of global publication standards [6, 8, 10, 14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Hesp¹,

Arai²,

Chu³

et al. 2019

Res Integr Peer Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges and several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This commentary aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.

show abstract

“…A number of studies suggest that poor publication practices are more prevalent in the Asia-Pacific region compared with other regions, particularly North America and Europe [7][8][9][10][11][12], although such assertions have been questioned [13,14]. Several factors may influence adherence to ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the ubiquitous pressure to publish, unscrupulous providers of editing or publishing services preying on such pressure, language barriers, cultural practices and/or an absence of awareness of global publication standards [6,8,10,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Hesp¹,

Arai²,

Chu³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous recommendations and guidelines aim to improve the quality, timeliness and transparency of medical publications. However, these guidelines use ambiguous language that can be challenging to interpret, particularly for speakers of English as a second language. Cultural expectations within the Asia-Pacific region raise additional challenges. Several studies have suggested that awareness and application of ethical publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively low compared with other regions. However, guidance on applying ethical publication practice guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region is lacking. This review aims to improve publication practices in the Asia-Pacific region by providing guidance on applying the 10 principles of the Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Recommendations are provided for encore presentations, applying the ICMJE authorship criteria in the context of regional cultural expectations, and the role of study sponsors and professional medical writers. Ongoing barriers to compliance with guidelines are also highlighted, and additional guidance is provided to support authors submitting manuscripts for publication. The roles of regional journals, regulatory authorities and professional bodies in improving practices are also discussed.

show abstract

Editorial: Why Some Authors Make Bad Choices—Peer Review for Hire and Other Sad Stories

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About