medigraphic.com
ISSN 1684-1824 (Electronic)

2019, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Méd Electrón 2019; 41 (6)

Ethics of peer reviewing in scientific publications

Robaina CGR, Semper GAI

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page:
PDF size: 565.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Peer reviews guarantee published materials be as valid and reliable as it be possible. Recognize reviewers’ work importance on scientific medical publication as well as the ethics issues to be accomplished during their performance. Development: Peer reviews could be single blind, double blind or open, each one with its advantages and disadvantages. During scientific research results publications, peer reviewer biases could be occurred. Some peer reviewer biases are related to ethical mistakes: no fulfillment of time limits, superficial evaluations, offense languages against editors or authors, at will cognitive cronyism and “ego bias”, among others. Nevertheless, measures’ implementation to minimize biases related to ethical mistakes is possible. The reviewers’ work is suitable to be recognized, taking into account it is done almost all the times on free time, without financial compensation and by researchers with recognized prestige. In the present word, even when this work has been threat by predatory journals spreads, some intent to do it justice and promotion are highlight, as do the website Publons. Multiple factors, contradictory sometime, are involved in the reviewers’ work: interests, duties, rights; but all of them should be pondering over the base of a solid ethic education and behavior.


REFERENCES

  1. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, et al. Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers. Korean Med Sci 2016;31(9):1351-4. Citado en PubMed: PMID: 27510376

  2. Dadkhah M, Kahani M, Borchardt G. A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Oct;24(5):1603-10. Citado en PubMed: PMID:28812275

  3. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, et al. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1-E14. Citado en PubMed: PMID:25675064.

  4. López Sánchez J. Finlay. El hombre y la verdad científica. La Habana: Editorial Científico-Técnica; 1987.

  5. Bricmont J. [Intellectual hoaxes. Various observations on epistemology and the human sciences]. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984). 1999;54(3):153-72. Citado en PubMed: PMID: 10898003.

  6. Arif N, Al-Jefri M, Bizzi IH, et al. Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1215. Citado en PubMed: PMID:29922286.7.

  7. Masic I, Begic E, Dobraca A. Plagiarism Detection by Online Solutions. Stud Health Technol Inform[Internet]. 2017[citado 19/04/2019];238:227-30. Disponible en: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318394481_Plagiarism_Detection_by_Onlin e_Solutions

  8. Public Knowledge Project. Open Journal Systems [Internet]. PKP;Budapet[citado 19/04/2019]; 2002. Disponible en: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/

  9. Wendler D, Miller F. The ethics of peer review in bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2014 Oct;40(10):697-701. Citado en PubMed: PMID:24131903

  10. Anglada Ll, Abadal E. ¿Qué es la ciencia abierta? Anuario ThinkEPI. [Internet]. 2018 [citado 19/04/2019];12:292-8. Disponible en: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/ThinkEPI/article/view/thinkepi.2018.43/

  11. Bartling S, Friesike S. Towards Another Scientific Revolution. En: Bartling S, Friesike S, editores. Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer Open[Internet]. Alemania: Springer Open[citado 19/06/2018]; 2014. Disponible en: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8/

  12. Vidal Ledo MJ, Zayas Mujica R, Alfonso Sánchez I. Ciencia abierta. Educ Med Super [Internet]. 2018 [citado 19/04/2019];32(4). Disponible en: http://www.ems.sld.cu/index.php/ems/article/view/1654/736/

  13. Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review. Toxicol Pathol. 2018 Feb;46(2):112-114. Citado en PubMed: PMID: 29382273

  14. Mercado Percia H. Malas prácticas de los revisores de artículos científicos. Journals & Authors Blog [Internet]. [citado 19/05/2019]; 2018 Disponible en: https://jasolutions.com.co/calidad-editorial/malas-practicas-de-los-revisores-dearticulos- cientificos/

  15. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 24(1):275-85. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 28155093.

  16. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Sci Eng Ethics[Internet]. 2016[citado 19/05/2019];22(1):169-88. Disponible en: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271593954_Ensuring_the_Quality_Fairness _and_Integrity_of_Journal_Peer_Review_A_Possible_Role_of_Editors/

  17. Publons. The home of expert peer review. Reviewer recognition, training, postpublication review and statistics[Internet]. USA: Publons[citado 14/04/2019];2012. Disponible en: https://publons.com/about/home/

  18. Beall J. Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research. J Korean Med Sci [Internet]. 2016 [citado 14/04/2019];31:1511-3. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511/

  19. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013; 342(6154):60-5. Citado en PubMed; PMID:24092725

  20. Tatalovic M. What has Science's open-access sting taught us about the quality of peer review? Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2013 Nov;13(4):209-11. Citado en PubMed; PMID: 24427852.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com