How to deal with improper or unethical peer review – Pubrica
                     How to Deal 
With
Improper or
Unethical 
PAn AcademDr. eNanecy Aric presentation bygnes, Head, Technical Operations, 
Pubrica
RGEmroaueipl::  [email protected]
Today's 
Discussion
Outlin
e
Functionality and Quality of Peer 
Review
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and
Reviewers
The Ethical Status of Peer 
Review
Alternatives
Conclusion
FUNCTIONALITY AND
QUALITY OF PEER 
REPVeIeEr Wreview is now nearly universal in 
scholarly
publications, and it is regarded as a 
necessary
component of the publishing process.
There is no agreement on what peer 
review is,
what it is for, what distinguishes a 'good' 
review
from a 'poor' review, or how even to begin to 
define
'Sqoumaleit yp ruebvlieiswh.ers may have previously 
acquired,
processed, and analysed peer review 
data
Contd..
internally to monitor and improve their .
processes.
This may be a significant file drawer issue, as such 
information is
only of little utility if solely utilised for personal reasons. 
Empirical
data on a variety of aspects of the peer review process 
might be
obtained, with different degrees of difficulty, to 
undTehrset annudm bert toefr referee reports per article, how many 
howpr oeitue nwrd orser kvosife, win cislu ding:
there?
Length of referee 
reports
During the evaluation process, was code, data, and 
documents
made available? Contd..
.
Was any code, data, or materials 
aincscpesescitbiloen f/oarnalysis during the 
process?
Who decides whether the reports should 
be
available to the public when these 
choices are
made, and what should be contained in 
them?
(Teh.eg . epdeirtcoerniatla cgoem mofe nptasp) ers that receive 
"redjeesckts" versus "peer review 
rejections."
What happens to submissions that are 
submitted?
Table 1: Journal peer-review survey 
data
ETHICAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
EDITORS AND REVIEWERS
The Committee on Publishing Ethical 
(COPE)
was established in 1997 to address 
research
and publication ethics violations and 
provide
It provides standards for writers, 
ae dciotodres ,of conduct for biomedical journals.
editorial board members, readers, 
journal
owners, and publishers to establish the 
best
practice in scientific publishing ethics.
Contd..
.
They include research design and ethical approval, data analysis, 
authorship, conflicts
of interest, peer review, redundant publishing, plagiarism, and editor 
responsibilities, as
well as media relations and advertising.
THE ETHICAL STATUS OF 
PEER
REVIEW ALTERNATIVES
DOUBLE-BLIND PEER 
REVIEW
Double-blind reviewing isn't any better than 
single-blind
reviewing in any manner.
The reviewer is still aware that he is working with 
competition
and may feel compelled to correct all of the issues 
that have
bTheee n dnooutebdle. blindness does not affect the 
incentives for
dishonest behaviour or the power to gain an 
advantage Contd..
through the review system. .

SINGLE-BLIND PEER 
REVIEW
Peer review has all of the ethical issues that 
peer
review has, plus one: the peer reviewer will be 
certain
of the reviewed identity and may pursue a 
personal
If the evaluated person is unlucky, his or her 
wcaomrkp waiilgl n based on past enmity.
be reviewed by someone who actively dislikes 
him or
Pheerrs, orensaul latisnsga uinlt as ni ne xptreeemr erley vbiaedw esv awleuraet ion.
reported by
17.7% of respondents in the poll, as mentioned 
earlier
on ethical issues with peer review. Contd..
.
PARTIAL OPEN REVIEW (SINGLE-
BLIND)
The term "partial open review" refers to a review 
method in
which the reviewer stays anonymous, but the review 
is made
pThueb lirce.ader of an article is aware of the reviewer's 
viewpoints
and may determine if the review is fair.
This is an improvement over the current method, which 
keeps
both reviews and reviewers hidden.
Contd..
.
OPEN REVIEW (NO 
BLIND)
An open peer to peer review system has 
several
audnveathnitcaagl es, aocnteiv iotyf ,w hitchhe yis  thwati lli f a revpierowfeers sional
feancgeages in
consequences.
An open peer review is one in which neither the 
reviewer
nor the reviewed are anonymous, and the 
reviews are
OPEmNa dReE pVuIEbWlic .BLINDED 
AUTHOR
The reviewer is known to the reviewer, but the 
review is
unknown to the reviewer in an honest review.
This makes it far less likely that the 
wrervitiee wae br iawsielld review as part of 
retribution.
Unless textual evidence indicates otherwise, 
the
reviewer cannot be confident that he is 
criticising
the work of someone he hates.
It's the polar opposite of the typical 
evaluation, and
it offers its own set of benefits.
CONCLUS I 
ON
Peer review is a complex and multifaceted 
process, and
it's quite conceivable that we overlooked some 
crucial
Paespeer crtesv. iew is not a stand-alone mechanism 
but an
integral element of a complex, changing 
ecological
Isty'ss tpeoms.sible to apply what has been done to 
other peer
reviews, such as grants and clinical trials.
Contact 
Us
UNITED KINGDOM
+44- 
7424810299
INDIA
+91-
9884350006
EMAIL
[email protected]
m