Ethics of reviewing scientific publications

European Journal of Internal Medicine

Volumn 40, Issue , 2017, Pages 22-25

  Napolitani, Federica ^a   Petrini, Carlo ^a   Garattini, Silvio ^b  

^a ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ   (Italy)

^b MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

Author keywords

Ethics; Peer review; Scientific research

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; MODEL; MUSCLE TRAINING; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; ETHICS; HUMAN; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATIONS;

EID: 85009243582     PISSN: 09536205     EISSN: 18790828     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.011     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. [1] Vico, G., New science. 1744. Cited in: Verene DP. Vico's New Science. A Philosophical Commentary, 2015, Cornwell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
2. [2] Csiszar, A., Peer review troubled from the start. Nature 532 (2016), 306–308.
3. [3] Aileen, F., Peer review: not as old as you might think. Times higher education, June 25, 2015 [Available online at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think].
4. [4] Ingelfinger, F.J., Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med 56:5 (1974), 686–692.
5. [5] Rennie, D., Preface. Peer review in scientific publishing Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, 1991, Council of Biology Editors, Chicago, IL.
6. [6] Wager, E., Godlee, F., Jefferson, T., How to survive peer review. 2002, BMJ Books, London.
7. [7] Jefferson, T., Snakes, ladders, and spin. Get peered. BMJ, 327(7429), 2003, 1439.
8. [8] Revolutionizing peer review? Editorial. Nat Neurosci, 8(4), 2005, 397.
9. [9] Alleva, E., Napolitani, F., Editorial a busy time for science editors. Ann Ist Super Sanita, 49(1), 2013, 1.
10. [10] Rennie, D., Let's make peer review scientific. Nature 535:7610 (2016), 31–33.
11. [11] Cohen, A., Pattanaik, S., Kumar, P., Bies, R.R., de Boer, A., Ferro, A., et al. Organised crime against the academic peer review system. Editorial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 81:6 (2016), 1012–1017.
12. [12] Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE), Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. 2013, COPE [Available online at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf].
13. [13] Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. March 7 2011 [Available online at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf].
14. [14] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2013 [Available online at: www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf].
15. [15] World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Recommendations on publication ethics policies for medical journals. Available online at http://www.wame.org/about/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie.
16. [16] Borovecki, A., Publication ethics. Ten Have, H., (eds.) Encyclopedia of global bioethics, vol. 3, 2016, Springer Reference – Business Media, Dordrecht, 2362–2368.
17. [17] Hames, I., Pierson, C.A., Ridgeway, N.E., Barbour, V., Publication Ethics: 16 years of COPE. 7th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 2013, 8–10.
18. [18] Byrne, J.A., Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Res Integr Peer Rev, 1(12), 2016, 10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2 [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2].
19. [19] Björk, B.-C., Hedlund, T., Emerging new methods of peer review in scholarly journals. Learned Publ 28 (2015), 85–91.
20. [20] Lacroix, E.M., Mehnert, R., The US National Library of Medicine in the 21st century: expanding collections, nontraditional formats, new audiences. Health Inf Libr J 19:3 (2002), 126–132, 10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00382.x.
21. [21] Richards, T.R., Montori, V.M., Godlee, F., Lapsley, P., Paul, D., Let the patient revolution begin. Editorial. BMJ, 346, 2013, f2614.
22. [22] Guidance for BMJ patient reviewers. Patient peer review at the BMJ. Available from http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/guidance-patient-reviewers.
23. [23] Guidelines for reporting the impact of patient and public involvement in research: strengthening the evidence base of patient and public involvement summary. Available from http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/3869_Guidelines-for-reporting-the-impact-of-patient-involvement.pdf, December 6 2010.
24. [24] Warne, V., Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publ 29:1 (2016), 41–50.
25. [25] Kriegeskorte, N., Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Front Comput Neurosci 6 (2012), 176–193.
26. [26] British Medical Journal. Guidance for peer reviewers. Available online at www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/guidance-peer-reviewers.