Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions

Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada, .
Science and Engineering Ethics (Impact Factor: 0.96). 01/2013; 20(1). DOI: 10.1007/s11948-012-9426-z
Source: PubMed


Scientific communication takes place at two registers: first, interactions with colleagues in close proximity-members of a network, school of thought or circle; second, depersonalised transactions among a potentially unlimited number of scholars can be involved (e.g., author and readers). The interference between the two registers in the process of peer review produces a drift toward conflict of interest. Three particular cases of peer review are differentiated: journal submissions, grant applications and applications for tenure. The current conflict of interest policies do not cover all these areas. Furthermore, they have a number of flaws, which involves an excessive reliance on scholars' personal integrity. Conflicts of interest could be managed more efficiently if several elements and rules of the judicial process were accepted in science. The analysis relies on both primary and secondary data with a particular focus on Canada.

1 Follower
9 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 04/2014; 21(3). DOI:10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A case of a particularly severe misbehavior in a review process is described. Two reviewers simply copied and pasted their critical comments from their previous reviews without reading the reviewed manuscript. The editor readily accepted the reviewers' opinion and rejected the manuscript. These facts give rise to some general questions about possible factors affecting the ethical behavior of reviewers and editors, as well as possible countermeasures to prevent ethical violations.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 08/2014; 21(4). DOI:10.1007/s11948-014-9583-3 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) —conformed by the main scientific publishers— has warned about the increasing number of ethical problems in scientific publication and recent scandals seem to indicate that ethical misconduct is repetitive. Ethical problems in scientific publication arise when the person deviates from expected moral behavior. Misconduct may be explained, at least in part, because many postgraduate students and young researchers seem to understand that ethical problems are only related to plagiarism of complete works or duplication of publications, and because it seems to be a lack of knowledge of the ethical standards in scientific publication. However, there are many other aspects conducing to ethical problems. The objective of this paper is to discuss and spread the ethical position of the main scientific publishers and researchers with the aim of build a unified point of view. In this paper, seventeen tips for avoiding ethical problems in scientific publication are presented, explained and discussed. I hope that this work will be valuable for postgraduate students and young researchers and answers many common questions about ethics in scientific publication.
    Dyna (Medellin, Colombia) 10/2014; 81(187):11-20. DOI:10.15446/dyna.v81n187.46102 · 0.22 Impact Factor
Show more