
<!DOCTYPE html>

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="Professional Responsibilities">

	<head>
		<title>Irresponsible practices in peer review</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="pro_1_60"
				current-module = "Professional Responsibilities"
				page-title = "Irresponsible practices in peer review"
				screen-time = "5"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
						
							<p>Peer review plays an important gatekeeping role in research. It is usually the deciding factor in decisions about research funding, publication and advancement; it is also a system that can be (and sometimes is) manipulated in various ways to achieve personal ends.</p>

							<instructional-text><p>Watch the animation below for a summary of some of the ways in which researchers might manipulate the peer-review process, whether they are having their work reviewed or reviewing the work of others.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Continue on for a summary of some of the ways in which researchers might manipulate the peer-review process, whether they are having their work reviewed or reviewing the work of others.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>

							<!-- VIDEO START -->
							<media type="video">
								<media-video
									video-src="https://player.vimeo.com/external/383258033.sd.mp4?s=e9c514e48bb17a70971ceb0102589d480b0cae0a&profile_id=164"
									captions-src="../media/video/pro_1_60_vid1_captions.vtt"
									transcript-src="../media/video/pro_1_60_vid1_transcript.vtt"
									poster-src="../media/video/pro_1_60_vid1_poster.jpg">
								</media-video>
							</media>
							<!-- VIDEO END -->
						
						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>Even though these practices might seem absurd and counter to best practice, they have all occurred &ndash; sometimes at uncomfortably high rates. These kinds of practices also risk undermining confidence in the peer-review process.</p>
							
							<h3>Your experience</h3>
							
							<p>What has your experience been? As you advance in your career, are you confident that your work will be reviewed carefully and impartially?</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Consider the statements set out below and select the responses that most accurately represent your level of agreement or disagreement. Click "Vote" to register your response, or click "View results" to see how others have responded.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider the following statements and choose the responses that most accurately represent your level of agreement or disagreement. </p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488818" noscript-text="Peer reviewers will not share my work with others when they review a manuscript I have submitted."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488819" noscript-text="Peer reviewers will be unbiased and judge my work on its merits."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488820" noscript-text="My institutional affiliation will not have any impact on the peer reviews I receive."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488821" noscript-text="My gender will not have any impact on the peer reviews I receive."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488822" noscript-text="Peer review in my department is designed to help my career development."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Statement 1 of 5:</h4>
								<p>Peer reviewers will not share my work with others when they review a manuscript I have submitted.</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 2 of 5:</h4>
								<p>Peer reviewers will be unbiased and judge my work on its merits.</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 3 of 5:</h4>
								<p>My institutional affiliation will not have any impact on the peer reviews I receive.</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 4 of 5:</h4>
								<p>My gender will not have any impact on the peer reviews I receive.</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 5 of 5:</h4>
								<p>Peer review in my department is designed to help my career development.</p>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
								</ul>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>Lack of confidence in the peer review process has led to calls for changes in the way research is reviewed.</p>
							
							<h3>New approaches to peer review</h3>
							
							<p>A number of important changes in peer review that are already underway are:</p>
							
							<ol>
								<li><strong>Post-publication review of peer-reviewed article.</strong> Informally and formally, articles are reviewed after publication and comments are posted on sites such as PubPeer and ScienceOpen (Swoger, 2018). The aim is to promote discussion and ongoing review of the relevance of results.</li>

								<li><strong>Post-publication review only.</strong> This approach aims to solve the problem of unfair rejection of articles due to bias and other factors. For instance, it is a well-known problem that it is much harder to publish negative results. To get around this problem, some publishers will now guarantee the publication of articles that meet a minimum standards check (normally relating to design and justification of the methods). They will then open the article for further review after publication. Articles that receive favourable post-publication reviews are then put into a 'reviewed' category.</li>

								<li><strong>Preprint publications.</strong> In some areas (particularly the physical sciences), researchers are encouraged to publish draft versions of manuscripts on preprint servers. The ideas can then be discussed openly prior to the final paper being submitted to a journal, without the authors having to worry about being 'scooped' by other research teams.</li>
							</ol>
							
							<p>How effective these new review mechanisms are remains to be seen &ndash; they have their critics and their supporters (for further discussion, see the Ross-Hellauer (2017) article 'What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review' linked to in the "Useful links" pod).</p>

						</page-content-main>

						<page-content-sidebar>
							
							<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
							<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<hosted-link id="RI_INT_pro_1_60">
										<ul>
											<li><a href="https://pubpeer.com/" target="_blank">PubPeer</a></li>
											<li><a href="https://www.scienceopen.com/" target="_blank">ScienceOpen</a></li>
											<li><a href="http://www.webmedcentral.com/" target="_blank">WebmedCentral</a></li>
											<li><a href="https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/" target="_blank">Wellcome Open Research</a></li>
										</ul>
										<p>For further discussion of open peer review and how it is understood and approached, see Tony Ross-Hellauer's 2017 article <a href="https://f1000researchdata.s3.amazonaws.com/manuscripts/13517/83b1c636-c4ce-4a97-843e-f600a748f004_11369_-_tony_ross-hellauer_v2.pdf?doi=10.12688/f1000research.11369.2" target="_blank">'What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review'</a>.</p>
									</hosted-link>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->
							
						</page-content-sidebar>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>Whatever system is used, the basic best practices for peer review must still be followed. Peer review is essential to professional self-regulation. If the system fails, new systems that rely more on non-peers to do the reviewing will have to be developed.</p>
							<p>You might find it interesting to talk with colleagues about the options available in the current peer-review system. Could someone with little to no understanding of your research methods and field still provide advice on whether your articles should be published or your grant requests approved? Could they really provide insights on your suitability for graduation, hiring or promotion?</p>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>