Resnik David B, Elmore Susan A
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Box 12233, Mail Drop CU 03, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Feb;22(1):169-88. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making.
越来越多的文献指出了一些可能损害期刊同行评审质量、公平性和诚信度的潜在问题,包括评审不足、评审报告不一致、评审者偏见以及评审者的道德违规行为。我们审视了有关这些问题的证据,并讨论了提议的改革措施,包括双盲评审和公开评审。无论进一步研究的结果如何,也无论改革该系统的尝试结果如何,很明显编辑是同行评审的关键,因为他们做出的决定会对评审过程及其结果产生重大影响。我们考虑了编辑在同行评审过程的不同阶段应采取的一些促进质量、公平性和诚信度的步骤,并对编辑行为和决策提出了一些建议。