Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 25408573

Safeguarding the Integrity of Science Communication by Restraining 'rational Cheating' in Peer Review

Overview
Journal J Korean Med Sci
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2014 Nov 20
PMID 25408573
Citations 4
Authors
Edward F Barroga
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.

Citing Articles

Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.

Barroga E J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(20):e138.

PMID: 32449322 PMC: 7246191. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138.

Improving Scientific Writing Skills and Publishing Capacity by Developing University-Based Editing System and Writing Programs.

Barroga E, Mitoma H J Korean Med Sci. 2019; 34(1):e9.

PMID: 30618516 PMC: 6318442. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e9.

Predatory Publishing Practices Corrode the Credibility of Science.

Barroga E J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(10):1535-6.

PMID: 26425055 PMC: 4575947. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.10.1535.

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.

Gasparyan A, Gerasimov A, Voronov A, Kitas G J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(4):360-4.

PMID: 25829801 PMC: 4366954. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360.

References
1.
Resnik D, Shamoo A . The singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res. 2011; 18(2):71-5. PMC: 3954607. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2011.557296. View
2.
Steen R, Casadevall A, Fang F . Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?. PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):e68397. PMC: 3704583. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397. View
3.
Smith R . Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006; 99(4):178-82. PMC: 1420798. DOI: 10.1177/014107680609900414. View
4.
Gasparyan A, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov N, Kitas G . Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2014; 54(6):600-8. PMC: 3893982. DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.600. View
5.
Paolucci M, Grimaldo F . Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics. 2014; 99:663-688. PMC: 4016809. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1239-1. View