Peer (and brothers) review? Ethical challenges in author-proposed peer-reviewers

European Journal of Internal Medicine

Volumn 47, Issue , 2018, Pages e24-e25

  Charlier, P ^a,b   Al Chaer, E D ^c   Bou Abdallah, F ^d   Massaad, C ^e   Herve C ^e  

^a LABORATOIRE DES SCIENCES DU CLIMAT ET DE L ENVIRONNEMENT   (France)

^b CASH Sanitary Unit of MA92 IPES   (France)

^c AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^d LEBANESE UNIVERSITY   (Lebanon)

^e UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMED CENTRAL; COMPETENCE; E-MAIL; HUMAN; INTERNAL MEDICINE; LETTER; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OSTRACISM; PEER REVIEW; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SIBLING;

EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SIBLINGS;

EID: 85027567303     PISSN: 09536205     EISSN: 18790828     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.08.002     Document Type: Letter

References (13)

1. Napolitani, F., Petrini, C., Garattini, S., Ethics of reviewing scientific publications. Eur J Intern Med 40 (2017), 22–25.
2. Vercellini, P., Buggio, L., Vigano, P., Somigliana, E., Peer review in medical journals: beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. Eur J Intern Med 31 (2016), 15–19.
3. Charlier, P., Deo, S., Brun, L., Should a scientist be prevented from publishing in a journal for which he works?. Eur J Intern Med, 41, 2017, e38.
4. Charlier, P., Deo, S., Hervé C., Anonymous biomedical publications for security reason? An open letter to the ICJME. Eur J Intern Med, 39, 2017, e15.
5. MacGill, M., What is peer review of medical research papers?. Medical News Today, 5th September 2014 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281528.php (consulted on 6/22/2017).
6. Oransky, I., Publisher discovers 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviews. Retraction Watch, 25th November 2014 http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/25/publisher-discovers-50-papers-accepted-based-on-fake-peer-reviews/ (consulted on 6/22/2017).
7. Barbash, F., Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal. The Washington Post, 27th March 2015 https://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/?utm_term=.c3618fe8177b/ (consulted on 6/22/2017).
8. Kowalczuk, M.K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., et al. 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, 2015, e008707.
9. Van Lent, M., IntHout, J., Out, H.J., Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 5, 2015, e007961.
10. Stigbrand, T., Retraction note to multiple articles in tumor biology. Tumour Biol, 2017, 1–6, 10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6.
11. Fu, W., Wang, X., Yang, W., et al. Retraction note to: structure-based development and optimization of therapy antibody drugs against TNFα. Amino Acids, 48(1), 2016, 319.
12. RCUK, Policy & guidelines on governance of good research conduct. https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/6207125/8155176/RCUKPolicyandGuidelinesonGovernanceofGoodResearchPracticeFebruary2013.pdf/7863167c-e6ea-4dbb-bc52-62afb6cc472f, Feb 2013 (consulted on 6/22/2017).
13. DeCoursey, T.E., Publishing: double-blind peer review, a double risk. Nature, 520, 2015, 623.