ReviewVascular health and risk management2007
What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?
Review in Vascular health and risk management, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Article
- Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2017Review
- From Gutenberg to Open Science: An Unfulfilled Odyssey.Drug development research · 2017Article
- 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2016Review
- Current views and practice of faculty members and consultants regarding 'Publications in India': A cross-sectional study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2015Article
- 'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2015Article
- Applications for oncologic drugs: a descriptive analysis of the oncologic drugs advisory committee reviews.The oncologist · 2014Article
- Pharmacy Practice suffered a plagiarism case.Pharmacy practice · 2012Article
- Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2011Article
- Discussing plagiarism in Latin American science. Brazilian researchers begin to address an ethical issue.EMBO reports · 2009Article
- Is peer review censorship?Infection and immunity · 2009Article
- Credit and visibility for peer reviewing: An overlooked aspect of scholarly publication.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
- Ethics in medical writing.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is an essential component of the process that is universally applied prior to the acceptance of a manuscript, grant or other scholarly work. Most of us willingly accept the responsibilities that come with being a reviewer but how comfortable are we with the process? Peer review is open to abuse but how should it be policed and can it be improved? A bad peer review process can inadvertently ruin an individual's career, but are there penalties for policing a reviewer who deliberately sabotages a manuscript or grant? Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled--is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, are dealt with in this review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17583174PMC1994041What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.