Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 275-285

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a   Al Khatib, Aceil ^b  

^a Miki cho Post Office   (Japan)

^b JORDAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Jordan)

Author keywords

Compromised trust; Flexible ethics; Lax selection; Open versus traditional peer review; Rules

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PERSONNEL; PUBLISHING; STATISTICAL BIAS; TRUST; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIAS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; TRUST;

EID: 85011610025     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6     Document Type: Note

References (39)

1. Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 208–219. doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4.
2. Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.
3. Allison, D. B., Brown, A. W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530, 27–29.
4. ATS (The Annals of Thoracic Surgery). (2017). Guidelines for reviewers (and authors). http://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/ats/reviewerguidelines.pdf. 27 October, 2016.
5. Barbash, F. (2015). Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/. 27 October, 2016.
6. Bartoli, A., De Lorenzo, A., Medvet, E., & Tarlao, F. (2016). Your paper has been accepted, rejected, or whatever: Automatic generation of scientific paper reviews. In Availability, Reliability, and Security in Information Systems. (Vol. 9817 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 19–28). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45507-5.
7. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013345.
8. Callaway, E. (2015). Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions. Nature,. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18202.
9. Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters,. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw115.
10. Earnshaw, J. J., Farndon, J. R., Guillou, P. J., Johnson, C. D., Murie, J. A., & Murray, G. D. (2000). A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 82, 133–135.
11. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.
12. Giordan, M., Csikasz-Nagy, A., Collings, A. M., & Vaggi, F. (2016). The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Research, 5, 683. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8452.2.
13. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud: Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
14. Helton, M. L., & Balistreri, W. F. (2011). Peering into peer-review. Journal of Pediatrics, 159(1), 150–151. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.02.012.
15. HLC (Higher Learning Commission). (2016). Determining qualified faculty through HLC’s criteria for accreditation and assumed practices. Guidelines for institutions and peer reviewers. http://download.hlcommission.org/FacultyGuidelines_2016_OPB.pdf. 27 October, 2016.
16. Korkmaz, S. A. (2017). Retraction notice to “Diagnosis of cervical cancer cell taken from scanning electron and atomic force microscope images of the same patients using discrete wavelet entropy energy and Jensen Shannon, Hellinger, Triangle Measure classifier” [SAA 160 (2016) 39–49]. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 170, 267. doi:10.1016/j.saa.2016.06.019.
17. Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., Patel, J., & Moylan, E. C. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 5(9), e008707. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707.
18. Kumar, M. (2009). A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine, 1(4), 16.
19. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
20. Luo, L., & Rubens, F. D. (2016). Traditional peer review and post-publication peer review. Perfusion, 31(6), 443–444. doi:10.1177/0267659116667265.
21. Murphy, E. (2015). The importance of ethical peer-review: Why do we ask authors to suggest reviewers anyway? Lipids, 50, 1165–1167. doi:10.1007/s11745-015-4094-9.
22. Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a.
23. Reller, T. (2016). Elsevier publishing— a look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-publishing-a-look-at-the-numbers-and-more. 27 October, 2016.
24. Resnik, D. B. (2011). A troubled tradition: It’s time to rebuild trust among authors, editors and peer reviewers. American Scientist, 99(1), 24. doi:10.1511/2011.88.24.
25. Rivara, F. P., Cummings, P., Ringold, S., Bergman, A. B., Joffe, A., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. Journal of Pediatrics, 151(2), 202–205. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.008.
26. Scholarone (2012). Thomson Reuters Quantifies Asia’s Rise in Global Submission Rates to Academic Publishers. http://scholarone.com/about/press/globalsubrelease/. 27 October, 2016.
27. Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., & Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 314–317. doi:10.1001/jama.295.3.314.
28. Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112, 360–365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112.
29. Snell, R. R. (2015). Menage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0120838. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120838.
30. Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine, 12, 179. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
31. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), 6–15.
32. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética 20(2): (in press).
33. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine, 1(2), 214–215. doi:10.1515/jim-2016-0031.
34. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2016). Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME, 4(1), 84–88. doi:10.17646/KOME.2016.16. (with erratum).
35. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(1), 22–40. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.
36. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Katavić, V. (2016). Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics (in press).
37. Tonks, A. (1995). Reviewers chosen by authors. British Medical Journal, 311, 210. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6999.210.
38. Wager, E., Parkin, E. C., & Tamber, P. S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4, 13. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-4-13.
39. Warne, V. (2015). Peer review week arrives! https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2015/09/28/peer-review-week-arrives?referrer=exchanges. 27 October, 2016.