Is It Time to Standardize Ethics Guiding the Peer Review Process?

Abstract

While most scientific journals have well defined ethics requirements for authors, very few journals explicitly specify the ethics standards that govern the actions of editors, editorial board members, and reviewers. We believe it is time to create a standardized policy for all medical and scientific journals that guides the ethical conduct of all stakeholders in the peer review process.In their recent article, James et al.(1) comment on the role of medical journals and the peer review process in the assessment of the cardiovascular risk of rofecoxib (Vioxx®), a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. The authors conclude that the commercial success of rofecoxib, despite the existence of convincing data regarding its severe cardiovascular risks, provides a case-study of the failure of the medical journals and peer review process in directing appropriate drug usage. While it is an important review of the COX-2 inhibitor controversy in its own right, we believe that the article by James et al indirectly raises a more general issue on the need for more stringent standards of ethical conduct for all participants in the peer review process. With the current movement to formalize the ethical regulations and guidelines for activities in science (2), we propose that it is time for universal adoption of standardized and written guidelines by peer-reviewed scientific journals regarding the ethical conduct of all stakeholders in the peer review process.While most scientific journals have well defined ethics requirements for authors, very few journals explicitly specify, in writing, the ethics standards that govern the actions of editors, editorial board members, and reviewers. In fact, it has been determined that of journals that require conflict of interest disclosures by authors, greater than 50% do not currently require editors or reviewers to disclose financial or other conflicts of interest (3). With two of the major publishers of scientific journals, Elsevier and Blackwell Publishing, and the HHS Office of Research of Integrity having offered suggested guidelines for ethical conduct in the peer review process (4-6), it is staggering that this number of peer-reviewed journals has been slow to adopt a standardized, written policy of ethics governing editors, reviewers and authors alike.We submit that it is time for all scientific journals to adopt a standardized and written code of ethics which governs all stakeholders in the peer review process and not just the authors of manuscripts. This endeavor should be undertaken via the guidance of the Editors-in-Chief and should include at the minimum:1. An explicitly stated policy in the Journal and its website regarding the ethical standards expected of authors, editors and reviewers. 2.A mandated disclosure of real or perceived conflicts of interest of authors, editors, members of the editorial board and reviewers during the submission process. 3.A detailed mechanism for editors or reviewers with real or perceived potential conflict of interests to recuse thems...

Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure

“…Secondly, our results confirm the need to improve ethical conduct and reputational motives for referees so as to maximize their reliability and commitment (e.g., Bosetti & Toscano, 2008). In reality, we know that reviewing is not at the top of the list for academic reputation.…”

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Study Results in Environmental and Occupational Health Research

“…The type of manuscripts published in any given journal is a function of the journal's editorial focus, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, the publisher's staff, the reviewer pool, institutional affiliations, and the readers. Although bias has been reported at the editor level and among reviewers, [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] both groups lack the resources to adequately assess COI. Neither group has the resources to check the veracity of reported conflicts of interest nor do they have the authority to manage COIs if present, which raises the question of whether editors and reviewers are the appropriate individuals to police publication bias.…”

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

“…Bosetti and Toscano cite an analysis of the Vioxx debacle by James et al as one of the most egregious cases of financial conflicts of interest in the history of the peer-review process that calls out for more stringent ethics standards. 74 James et al blame pharmaceutical company sales and marketing practices and uncritical reviewers at the New England Journal of Medicine of Merck-sponsored research that dismissed concerns of cardiovascular issues. 75 Spielmans et al examined the clinical trials on duloxetine, a treatment for depression, 76 to see how data were reported across 43 analyses, and found that in 88% of them at least one author was employed by a manufacturer of the drug and that six clinical trials were part of 20 or more separately published analyses.…”