Peer Review

Home/Tag:Peer Review

Is peer review confidentiality overridden when the author is suspected of misconduct?

The following case study was published by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Editor A wrote to editor B, indicating that one of the reviewers of a paper submitted to Journal A contained material that had been submitted at about the same time to Journal B. Editor A requested a copy of the paper submitted to Journal B. Editor B responded, confirming that the paper in question had been submitted to Journal B (submission date two weeks earlier than the paper submitted to Journal A),

Categories: Accountability, Case Studies, Duty of Care, Publication-related Conduct, Reporting Irresponsible Research Practices|Tags: , , , , |

Leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer – a COPE case study

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has shared a case study on its website regarding the leak of a confidential draft by a peer reviewer (http://publicationethics.org/case/online-posting-confidential-draft-peer-reviewer): Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the

Categories: Case Studies, Duty of Care, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , |

‘Want a favourable peer review? Buy one.’

The following is an extract from an article ('Want a favorable peer review? Buy one') by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus which appeared on the STAT News website (21 April 2016): The EditPub site (which seemed on Thursday to be no longer up and running), is almost entirely in Chinese, but its homepage bills it as a “service center for scientific research.” Its existence came to light earlier this month after the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology retracted a 2015 article by a group from

Categories: Case Studies, Objectivity|Tags: , |

R (BAT) v DOH – a landmark judgment on research integrity

On 19 May 2016, Mr Justice Green handed down his judgment in the English High Court case of R. (on the application of British American Tobacco UK Ltd & Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin) in which the claimant tobacco companies challenged the legality of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. This decision is significant as Mr Justice Green discusses the way in which the Court, in the context of a judicial review, should evaluate expert evidence in

Categories: Abuse of Data, Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, Good Research Practices, Non-Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest, Objectivity|Tags: , , , |