ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for socially responsible science.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Peer review practices by medical imaging journals.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature.Croatian medical journal · 2017Article
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
As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors' suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors' message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process-especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory-may constitute a violation of authors' rights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28155093What 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.