With recent developments in publishing, the review process is evolving; how might this affect the ethics of peer review?

1. Anything
common?
• BOSE–EINSTEIN STATISTICS AND CONDENSATE, 1924
• LASER, 1960
• RICHARD ERNST: Application of Fourier transform
spectroscopy to NMR
• ENDOSYMBIOTIC THEORY, 1967
• MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI), 1973
• CELL DIVISION CYCLE, 1974

2. Ethics in
Peer review
process
DR BHAVNA GUPTA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPTT OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
AIIMS, RISHIKESH

3. Introduction
Peer review is
the evaluation of
scientific articles
by experts.
Validates
academic work
Helps improve
quality of pre-
published
research
Can it introduce
Unethical
practices
?

4. Flow of article
1 2
3
3 4
5
6
6
6
7
8
providing guidance on how the author can improve their paper

5. Peer Review in
Scholarly Journals:
An international
study
 40,000 researchers randomly
selected from ISI author database
 4,037 researchers completed
survey

6. 69% researchers were
satisfied with the current
system of peer review
56% believed there is a lack
of guidance on how to
review
Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: An international
study
69% of authors reported that on their most recent published
paper, it took up to 6 months for the paper to be accepted.

9. Rude
Reviewer
remarks

10. Bias in Peer
review process
JOURNAL
bias
country
institution
affiliations
language
gender
Editor’s appraisal
of articles
dogma of reviewers,
differences in the
proposed paradigm
delaying a
publication/
mitigate/negate/
temper findings.

11. Editor
bias
biased in selecting papers
more likely to send for review
if they have met authors
are already familiar with work
author from an institution known to the editors
Choose “soft” or “hard” reviewers
Decisions might be influenced by conflicts of interest

12. Peer
reviewer
bias
Peer reviewers can ask authors to
delete outcomes
combine outcomes
modify analyses
Non-significant results can be denied publication
might reject or delay acceptance (do not accord with their own beliefs)

13. Bias
(Type of peer
review)
Single-blind
peer review
Double Blind
Peer review
Triple-blind
review
Cascading
peer review
Open peer
review

14. Single-
blind peer
review
Advantageous to
famous authors
and prestigious
institutions
But detrimental
to junior
investigators
Discrimination
against authors
nationality, native
language, sex,
or institution is
plausible.

15. Double
blind peer
review
reviewers’ remarks,
plagiarism of nonpublished
data for personal benefit,
A reviewer may take a
longer time and deliberate
delay
uncovering the author’s
identity instead of focusing
on proper review.

16. Open peer
review
possible creation of hostility and
retaliation between authors and
reviewers.
associated with a higher refusal
rate from reviewers.
an increased time to write the
reviews
Journals may ask authors to
suggest reviewers, but they may
be more favorable than those
nominated by the editors.
Supporters of this system believe that it increases transparency

17. Bias from researchers
Gift authorship:
not made substantial
contribution.
Ghost authorship:
substantially contributed but
omitted.
Fabricated data
Data that are made up.
Falsified data
unjustifiably altered in order to
yield more impressive/
convenient results.
Stealing data
Using someone else’s data
without their consent.
Results that agree with the
opinions of an editor.
Submit only positive results
Unacceptable bias
ignore data that does not fit
particular point of view
use of self-citations and
citations “in press”
authors inadvertently reveal
identity.

18. How to identify bias
Reviewers who
ask authors to
cite their paper
Editor who ask
authors to cite his
papers or papers
from his journal
Reviewer
reviewing his own
papers or those of
his friends to
accept them
Reviewer
rejecting papers-
conflict of
interest.
Reviewer who
disclose publicly
an unpublished
paper

19. Flow of article
1 2
3
3 4
5
6
6
6
7
8

20. Predatory Journals

22. Confidentiality Objectivity Diligence Timeliness
ETHICS IN PEER REVIEW
kept secret or private fair assessment honest assessment swiftness

23. Moral ethics
Does subject area
match expertise?
Do I have time to
review within the
timescale requested?
Do I have any conflicts
of interest?
How
much
time
should I
spend on
a review?

24. • conduct professionally,
courteously,
collegially,
politely
• Never contact the authors
directly;
Always treat the paper with the
utmost confidentiality
Take an objective, independent approach
to the work,
putting aside subjective feelings
Provide evidence, where appropriate, for
the statements you make in your report
Basic
principles

25. Ethics in
Review
Be objective
Include details of what is good about article
Look for novelty
importance of work
Recognize that no study is perfect
Be constructive
Be thorough and thoughtful
Evaluate both quality of the ideas and results
Be specific and factually accurate
Recognize opinion vs fact
Be civil

26. Perfect peer
review
process?
Double-blind and triple blind peer review
system seems less biased at face value.
Dr Richard Smith, former editor of BMJ,
described the single-blind peer review
system as
“slow, highly subjective, prone to bias and
easily abused.
The peer review process is far from perfect.

27. Can we prevent
author bias
Authors should adhere
to the instructions set
by the journals
Revise as per
reviewer’s suggestions
Ensure article adheres
to ethical standards
opportunity to appeal
against the decision when
they find it to be unfair

28. Can we
prevent
reviewer bias
Using
standard
checklists
rather than
giving a
report in
their own
words
training
courses on
peer review
for young
researchers

29. Be attentive to the task as your report will
influence the decision on the article, which may
have an impact on the career of the author(s)
or the reputation of the journal

30. An editor’s role
formal
judgement on a
disputed matter.
avoid
obvious
COI
prevent
abuses of
reviewers
unsound
criticisms
aggressive
comments
deliberate
delay
A code of
practice for
malpractices

31. Without your permission

32. who want to
publish their work
for career
promotion
who are on the
lookout for novel
and sound
research
who try to find
sufficient time in
their busy
schedules and
often without
remuneration or
academic credit
who compete
with other rivals
in a fast-changing
field
ultimate
stakeholder,
whose care and
even survival may
depend on the
sound flow of the
peer review

33. What is
common?
• BOSE–EINSTEIN STATISTICS AND CONDENSATE, 1924
• THE KREBS CYCLE, 1937
• LASER, 1960
• RICHARD ERNST: Application of Fourier
transform spectroscopy to NMR
• ENDOSYMBIOTIC THEORY, 1967
• MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI), 1973
• THE CELL DIVISION CYCLE, 1974

34. Take home message
Provide an
objective,
honest, and
unbiased
review
Choose
assignments
wisely
Honor the
confidentiality
of the review
process
Be respectful
and
professional

35. THANKYOU"Hard work always wins in the end."