Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication

Scientometrics

Volumn 77, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 415-432

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Nast, Irina ^a   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 56749183653     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anon (2006a), Ethics and fraud. Nature, 439(7073): 117-118.
2. Anon (2006b), Three cheers for peers. Nature, 439(7073): 118.
3. J. S. Armstrong 1982 Research on scientific journals: implications for editors and authors Journal of Forecasting 1 1 83 104
4. H. Bauch 2006 Fraud: anonymous 'stars' would not dazzle reviewers Nature 440 7083 408
5. L. Bornmann H.-D. Daniel 2007 Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 8 1100 1107
6. K. Brad Wray 2006 Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 3 505 514
7. Byrne, D. W. (1998), Publishing Your Medical Research paper. What They Don't Teach in Medical School, London, UK, Williams & Wilkins.
8. J. M. Campanario 1998 Peer review for journals as it stands today - part 1 Science Communication 19 3 181 211
9. M. K. Cho G. Mcgee D. Magnus 2006 Lessons of the stem cell scandal Science 311 5761 614 615
10. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
11. J. Couzin 2006 And how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors Science 311 5757 23 24
12. D. Cyranoski 2006 Verdict: Hwang's human stem cells were all fakes Nature 439 7073 122 123
13. Fletcher, R. H., Fletcher, S. W. (2003), The effectiveness of journal peer review. In: F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds), Peer Review in Health Sciences. London, UK, BMJ Books, pp. 62-75.
14. M. F. Fox 1994 Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes Journal of Higher Education 65 3 298 309
15. S. Hirschauer 2004 Peer Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand. Zum Soziologiedefizit der Wissenschaftsevaluation Zeitschrift für Soziologie 33 1 62 83
16. L. Howard G. Wilkinson 1998 Peer review and editorial decision-making British Journal of Psychiatry 173 110 113
17. Huth, E. J. (2000), Repetitive and divided publication. In: A. H. Jones, F. Mclellan (Eds), Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore, MA, USA, Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 112-136.
18. Lee, K., Bero, L. (2006), Ethics: increasing accountability. What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review. Retrieved June 17, 2006, from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/op3.html.
19. T. J. Martin 2006 Reactions to the Hwang scandal Science 311 5761 607
20. B. C. Martinson M. S. Anderson R. De Vries 2005 Scientists behaving badly Nature 435 7043 737 738
21. Meadows, A. J. (1998), Communicating Research, London, UK, Academic Press.
22. Merton, R. K. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
23. D. Normile G. Vogel J. Couzin 2006 South Korean team's remaining human stem cell claim demolished Science 311 5758 156 157
24. L. Odling-Smee J. Giles I. Fuyuno D. Cyranoski E. Marris 2007 Where are they now? Nature 445 7125 244 245
25. Office of Management and Budget (2004), Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Washington, DC, USA: Office of Management and Budget.
26. Rennie, D. (2003), Misconduct and journal peer review. In: F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds), Peer Review in Health Sciences. London, UK, BMJ Books, pp. 118-129.
27. Sense About Science (2005), "I Don't Know What to Believe " Making Sense of Science Stories. London, UK: Sense about Science.
28. Shapin, S. (1994), A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, Chicago, IL, USA, The University of Chicago Press.
29. R. Smith 2006 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 4 178 182
30. Weller, A. C. (2002), Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses, Medford, NJ, USA, Information Today, Inc.
31. White, H. D. (2005), On extending informetrics: an opinion paper. In: P. Ingwersen, B. Larsen (Eds), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Stockholm, Sweden, Karolinska University Press, pp. 442-449.
32. Ziman, J. (2000), Real Science. What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.