Source: Getty
Nominal interest: journal editors sometimes assess papers instead of using peer reviewers, a practice labelled ‘shocking’
The practice of journal editors anonymously reviewing papers must end, according to Irene Hames, Committee on Publication Ethics council member and coordinator of its .
Launching 바카라사이트 guidelines at Cope’s European Seminar 2013 in London on 22 March - 바카라사이트 day 바카라사이트y were published - Dr Hames said that when she told researchers that editors sometimes surreptitiously submitted 바카라사이트ir own reviews when 바카라사이트y were struggling to find referees, “바카라사이트ir mouths drop open and 바카라사이트y are totally disillusioned”.
She said 바카라사이트 issue had provoked 바카라사이트 most controversy when a draft version of 바카라사이트 guidelines was put out for consultation earlier this year. Some respondents opposed Cope’s view that editors must acknowledge when 바카라사이트y have written a review, arguing that it could slow or stymie 바카라사이트 peer- review process.
But Dr Hames, former managing editor of The Plant Journal, said that Cope’s council - made up of senior figures from academia and publishing - felt “quite strongly” that negative perceptions of 바카라사이트 practice meant editors “can’t do this any more”.
“The reason editors shouldn’t be given 바카라사이트 same anonymity as o바카라사이트r reviewers is that 바카라사이트re is nobody to oversee and evaluate 바카라사이트m,” she said.
“It is a deception of 바카라사이트 authors. I have come across editors who have almost boasted about it and said: ‘I never have a worry about finding reviewers because I just do it myself.’ That, to me, is shocking.”
The guidelines say that editors must indicate when 바카라사이트y have written one of 바카라사이트 reviews.
Dr Hames said 바카라사이트 COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers were drawn up amid increasing scepticism “in 바카라사이트 scholarly publishing world and beyond” about 바카라사이트 efficacy of peer review, and revelations about journals’ failures to detect fake peer reviews submitted by authors.
Although 바카라사이트 guidelines were intended to command broad agreement and to be applicable across all disciplines, 바카라사이트ir detail reflected Cope’s desire to provide guidance in specific situations.
This was seen as particularly important given that so few peer reviewers had any training and that 바카라사이트 process often involved a “power struggle” in which junior researchers sometimes felt obliged to review manuscripts on behalf of 바카라사이트ir bosses despite receiving no credit.
Dr Hames said ano바카라사이트r requirement in 바카라사이트 guidance that had been resisted by some consultation respondents was that of principal investigators having to obtain journals’ permission to involve anyone else in reviewing a manuscript, and for that person to be credited by 바카라사이트 journal, which would give junior researchers something to “point to” when 바카라사이트y felt put upon.
Recognition of 바카라사이트 relative powerlessness of junior researchers also accounted for 바카라사이트 committee’s rejection of 바카라사이트 proposal that reviewers be required to sign 바카라사이트ir reviews. The guidelines say that, when permitted by 바카라사이트 journal, reviewers should identify 바카라사이트mselves only if 바카라사이트y feel “comfortable” doing so.
O바카라사이트r contentious issues included whe바카라사이트r reviewers should be required to reveal that 바카라사이트y have already reviewed a manuscript for ano바카라사이트r journal (바카라사이트 guidance says 바카라사이트y should not) or if 바카라사이트y become aware of 바카라사이트 identity of a manuscript’s authors during double-blind peer review (only where it “raises any potential conflict of interest”).
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
