Ethics of peer reviewing in scientific publications
Keywords:
Key words, Peer review, scientific research, ethics, publication ethics, integrity, scientific misconduct, open science.Abstract
Peer reviews guarantee published materials be as valid and reliable as it be possible. Recognize reviewers’ work importance on scientific medical publication as well as the ethics issues to be accomplished during their performance. Development: Peer reviews could be single blind, double blind or open, each one with its advantages and disadvantages. During scientific research results publications, peer reviewer biases could be occurred. Some peer reviewer biases are related to ethical mistakes: no fulfillment of time limits, superficial evaluations, offense languages against editors or authors, at will cognitive cronyism and “ego bias”, among others. Nevertheless, measures’ implementation to minimize biases related to ethical mistakes is possible. The reviewers’ work is suitable to be recognized, taking into account it is done almost all the times on free time, without financial compensation and by researchers with recognized prestige. In the present word, even when this work has been threat by predatory journals spreads, some intent to do it justice and promotion are highlight, as do the website Publons. Multiple factors, contradictory sometime, are involved in the reviewers’ work: interests, duties, rights; but all of them should be pondering over the base of a solid ethic education and behavior.
Downloads
References
2. Dadkhah M, Kahani M, Borchardt G. A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Oct;24(5):1603-10.
3. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):E1-E14.
4. López Sánchez J. Finlay. El hombre y la verdad científica. La Habana: Editorial Científico-Técnica, 1987.
5. Bricmont J. [Intellectual hoaxes. Various observations on epistemology and the human sciences]. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984). 1999;54(3):153-72. French.
6. Arif N, Al-Jefri M, Bizzi IH, Perano GB, Goldman M, Haq I, et al. Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries. Front Immunol. 2018 Jun 5;9:1215.
7. Masic I, Begic E, Dobraca A. Plagiarism Detection by Online Solutions. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;238:227-30.
8. Public Knowledge Project. Open Journal Systems. [Internet]. [consultado 19 de abril de 2019]. Disponible en: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs
9. Wendler D, Miller F. The ethics of peer review in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2014 Oct;40(10):697-701.
10. Anglada Ll, Abadal E. ¿Qué es la ciencia abierta? Anuario ThinkEPI. [Internet]. 2018 [citado 2019 abr 19];12:292-8. Disponible en: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/ThinkEPI/article/download/thinkepi.2018.43/39164
11. Bartling S, Friesike S. Towards Another Scientific Revolution. En: Bartling S, Friesike S, editores. Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer Open. Alemania: Springer Open. 2014. [citado 2018 jun 19]. Disponible en: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8
12. Vidal Ledo MJ, Zayas Mujica R, Alfonso Sánchez I. Ciencia abierta. Educ Med Super [Internet]. 2018 [citado 2019 abr 19];32(4). Disponible en: http://www.ems.sld.cu/index.php/ems/article/view/1654/736
13. Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review. Toxicol Pathol. 2018 Feb;46(2):112-114.
14. Mercado Percia H. Malas prácticas de los revisores de artículos científicos. 2018 Feb 11. [citado 2019 abr 04]. En: Journals & Authors Blog [Internet]. Medellín, Colombia. [cerca de 5 pantallas]. Disponible en: https://jasolutions.com.co/calidad-editorial/malas-practicas-de-los-revisores-de-articulos-cientificos/
15. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 24(1):275-85.
16. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(1):169-88.
17. Publons. [Internet]. [citado 2019 abr 14]. Disponible en: https://publons.com/about/home/
18. Beall J. Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research. J Korean Med Sci [Internet]. 2016;31:1511-3. [citado 2019 abr 14]. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511
19. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science 2013; 342(6154):60-5.
20. Tatalović M. What has Science's open-access sting taught us about the quality of peer review? Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2013 Nov;13(4):209-11.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All content published in this journal is Open Access, distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
It allows:
- Copy and redistribute published material in any medium or format.
- Adapt the content.
This will be done under the following terms:
- Attribute the authors' credits and indicate whether changes were made, in which case it must be in a reasonable way.
- Non-commercial use.
- Recognize the journal where it is published.
The copyrights of each article are maintained, without restrictions.
Guidelines to authors
