Suppr超能文献

对科学期刊同行评审伦理问题的认知:一项探索性研究。

Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study.

作者信息

Resnik David B, Gutierrez-Ford Christina, Peddada Shyamal

机构信息

NIEHS/NIH, Mail Drop NH 06, Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):305-10. doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4. Epub 2008 Mar 1.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

2
Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?生物医学研究是否免受掠夺性审稿人影响?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Feb;25(1):293-321. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
3
Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts.医学稿件评审指南的伦理学
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Aug;46(2):391-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.05.024.
4
Ethical issues in biomedical publications.生物医学出版物中的伦理问题。
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2001;4(4):261-6. doi: 10.1080/1464727012000199631.

引用本文的文献

5
Self-referencing rates in biological disciplines.生物学科中的自引率。
Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 Sep 22;8:1215401. doi: 10.3389/frma.2023.1215401. eCollection 2023.
6
Cite-seeing and reviewing: A study on citation bias in peer review.引注可见性与评审:同行评审中的引文偏差研究。
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 7;18(7):e0283980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283980. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

2
Is peer review in crisis?同行评审正处于危机之中吗?
Oral Oncol. 2005 Feb;41(2):135-41. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.11.001.
3
How to review a paper.如何审阅一篇论文。
Adv Physiol Educ. 2003 Dec;27(1-4):47-52. doi: 10.1152/advan.00057.2002.
4
The politics of publication.出版的政治学
Nature. 2003 Mar 20;422(6929):259-61. doi: 10.1038/422259a.
6
Peers under pressure.压力之下的同龄人。
Nature. 2001 Sep 13;413(6852):102-4. doi: 10.1038/35093252.
7
Bad peer reviewers.糟糕的同行评审员。
Nature. 2001 Sep 13;413(6852):93. doi: 10.1038/35093213.
8
Opening up BMJ peer review.开放《英国医学杂志》的同行评审。
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):4-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.
10
Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded.
Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jan 1;128(1):66-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-1-199801010-00011.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验