Resnik David B, Gutierrez-Ford Christina, Peddada Shyamal
NIEHS/NIH, Mail Drop NH 06, Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):305-10. doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4. Epub 2008 Mar 1.
This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review.
本文报告了对一家政府研究机构的研究人员进行的一项匿名调查结果,该调查涉及他们对期刊同行评审伦理问题的看法。能力不足的评审是受访者报告的最常见伦理问题,61.8%(标准误=3.3%)的受访者称在同行评审的某个阶段经历过这种情况。偏见(50.5%,标准误=3.4%)是第二常见的问题。约22.7%(标准误=2.8%)的受访者表示,一位评审要求他们在文中不必要地引用其发表的文章;17.7%(标准误=2.6%)的受访者称评审的意见包含人身攻击;9.6%(标准误=2.0%)的受访者表示评审延迟发表以便自己发表同一主题的论文。同行评审伦理中最严重的两种违规行为,即违反保密规定(6.8%,标准误=1.7%)和未经许可使用观点、数据或方法(5%,标准误=1.5%),相比其他问题较少被提及。我们建议其他研究者在我们探索性研究的基础上,对同行评审伦理进行更多研究。