WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.650 align:middle line:90%


00:00:00.650 --> 00:00:03.830 align:middle line:84%
While most researchers follow
the correct procedures,

00:00:03.830 --> 00:00:07.910 align:middle line:84%
irresponsible researchers
exploit or manipulate the peer

00:00:07.910 --> 00:00:10.430 align:middle line:90%
review system in various ways.

00:00:10.430 --> 00:00:13.160 align:middle line:84%
When they're submitting a
paper to be peer reviewed,

00:00:13.160 --> 00:00:15.350 align:middle line:84%
they could deliberately
put forward

00:00:15.350 --> 00:00:17.270 align:middle line:84%
the names of
colleagues they know

00:00:17.270 --> 00:00:20.270 align:middle line:84%
will be likely to give
them a favorable review,

00:00:20.270 --> 00:00:22.370 align:middle line:84%
or suggest that
reviewers who might be

00:00:22.370 --> 00:00:26.000 align:middle line:84%
critical of their publication
have conflicts of interest

00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:28.580 align:middle line:84%
to get them removed
from the review process.

00:00:28.580 --> 00:00:32.030 align:middle line:84%
Some researchers try to
avoid the peer review process

00:00:32.030 --> 00:00:35.000 align:middle line:84%
altogether by deliberately
targeting journals

00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:37.580 align:middle line:90%
with weak review procedures.

00:00:37.580 --> 00:00:40.520 align:middle line:84%
Researchers have also been
known to use fake email

00:00:40.520 --> 00:00:43.580 align:middle line:84%
addresses so they can
review their own research.

00:00:43.580 --> 00:00:46.910 align:middle line:84%
Some researchers have even
hacked online review of systems

00:00:46.910 --> 00:00:48.650 align:middle line:90%
to alter scores.

00:00:48.650 --> 00:00:50.510 align:middle line:90%
But what about reviewers?

00:00:50.510 --> 00:00:54.110 align:middle line:84%
An irresponsible reviewer
might allow personal biases

00:00:54.110 --> 00:00:57.170 align:middle line:84%
to creep in, dismissing
articles by researchers

00:00:57.170 --> 00:01:01.280 align:middle line:84%
from minor institutions or
universities based abroad.

00:01:01.280 --> 00:01:03.410 align:middle line:84%
Self-interest could
cause a reviewer

00:01:03.410 --> 00:01:07.460 align:middle line:84%
to reject papers from rival
research groups or groups that

00:01:07.460 --> 00:01:09.860 align:middle line:90%
support competing ideas.

00:01:09.860 --> 00:01:12.410 align:middle line:84%
Reviewers have also
been known to use ideas

00:01:12.410 --> 00:01:16.100 align:middle line:84%
from papers under review to
develop their own research.

00:01:16.100 --> 00:01:18.020 align:middle line:84%
At the same time,
they might negatively

00:01:18.020 --> 00:01:20.090 align:middle line:84%
review the submitted
paper so they

00:01:20.090 --> 00:01:22.550 align:middle line:90%
can publish the ideas first.

00:01:22.550 --> 00:01:25.700 align:middle line:84%
The final irresponsible
behavior can be traced back

00:01:25.700 --> 00:01:27.290 align:middle line:90%
to a lack of time.

00:01:27.290 --> 00:01:29.270 align:middle line:84%
If a reviewer is
in a hurry, they

00:01:29.270 --> 00:01:32.750 align:middle line:84%
could easily let standards slip
and failed to properly review

00:01:32.750 --> 00:01:39.000 align:middle line:90%
data or check analysis methods.