Predatory Publishing and Questionable Peer Review
Predatory Publishing and Questionable Peer Review
Misconduct undermines public trust in the validity of peer review and scientific publication, and legitimate publishers and bibliometric analysts are concerned. Authors and reviewers may want to become as informed about this threat to scholarly credibility as publishers and bibliometric analysts are. Self-regulation of scientific integrity is accomplished through peer review and publication standards. Guidelines for journal editors have been published by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors, the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research), the Council of Science Editors, and the Office of Research Integrity, among others.
Blackwell Publishing stated in its best practice guidelines for publication ethics that sources of funding should always be revealed. Journal editors may want to consider adopting the ICMJE authorship criteria, which state that authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, article drafting or critical revising, and final approval of the version to be published. Blackwell includes other suggestions, such as specific instructions regarding redundant publication. Clinical trials should be registered in free clinical trial registries. Authors should state that their study was approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board, and if animals are used, animal care should be described. Consent should be obtained from study participants for data or photographs.
Lovejoy et al recognized that while reviewing proposed manuscripts is time-consuming, it can also be intellectually stimulating, and provided guidance for novice as well as seasoned reviewers. Several recommendations for novice reviewers bear repeating, such as identifying a small number of areas of expertise, preferably in those in which they have published, and disclosing potential financial biases, disagreement with methodology or content, and recognition that a colleague or other individual close to the reviewer is the author. Lovejoy also recommended that reviewers read additional literature even though that is normally not expected, that they include a recommendation to publish or not in responses to the journal editor and not to authors, and that comments to authors should be phrased in a respectful tone.
When considering author-pay online publishing and conference invitations from unknown organizations, potential authors may want to assure that the publisher or journal is not on Beall's list, and if it is, read Beall's comments and any responses from the publisher or editor. The same principles can be applied to conferences not associated with familiar organizations. Many OA publishers are new and aim for the highest ethical standards; nonetheless, diligence can be applied to avoid journals where authors pay regardless of ultimate acceptance and to withhold payment until constructive criticism is received from at least 2 reviewers.
Finally, at the institutional level, individuals and committees charged with evaluating the qualifications of candidates in the processes of hiring and promotion may also want to become as informed as possible of the varied quality of peer review in the current environment. People with budgetary oversight should to consider whether publishing fees and conference fees are spent with due diligence when faculty members propose to publish or attend conferences.
Discussion
Misconduct undermines public trust in the validity of peer review and scientific publication, and legitimate publishers and bibliometric analysts are concerned. Authors and reviewers may want to become as informed about this threat to scholarly credibility as publishers and bibliometric analysts are. Self-regulation of scientific integrity is accomplished through peer review and publication standards. Guidelines for journal editors have been published by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors, the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research), the Council of Science Editors, and the Office of Research Integrity, among others.
Blackwell Publishing stated in its best practice guidelines for publication ethics that sources of funding should always be revealed. Journal editors may want to consider adopting the ICMJE authorship criteria, which state that authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, article drafting or critical revising, and final approval of the version to be published. Blackwell includes other suggestions, such as specific instructions regarding redundant publication. Clinical trials should be registered in free clinical trial registries. Authors should state that their study was approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board, and if animals are used, animal care should be described. Consent should be obtained from study participants for data or photographs.
Lovejoy et al recognized that while reviewing proposed manuscripts is time-consuming, it can also be intellectually stimulating, and provided guidance for novice as well as seasoned reviewers. Several recommendations for novice reviewers bear repeating, such as identifying a small number of areas of expertise, preferably in those in which they have published, and disclosing potential financial biases, disagreement with methodology or content, and recognition that a colleague or other individual close to the reviewer is the author. Lovejoy also recommended that reviewers read additional literature even though that is normally not expected, that they include a recommendation to publish or not in responses to the journal editor and not to authors, and that comments to authors should be phrased in a respectful tone.
When considering author-pay online publishing and conference invitations from unknown organizations, potential authors may want to assure that the publisher or journal is not on Beall's list, and if it is, read Beall's comments and any responses from the publisher or editor. The same principles can be applied to conferences not associated with familiar organizations. Many OA publishers are new and aim for the highest ethical standards; nonetheless, diligence can be applied to avoid journals where authors pay regardless of ultimate acceptance and to withhold payment until constructive criticism is received from at least 2 reviewers.
Finally, at the institutional level, individuals and committees charged with evaluating the qualifications of candidates in the processes of hiring and promotion may also want to become as informed as possible of the varied quality of peer review in the current environment. People with budgetary oversight should to consider whether publishing fees and conference fees are spent with due diligence when faculty members propose to publish or attend conferences.
