Dataset Information

Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

ABSTRACT: Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data (as is increasingly required) to a journal. When researchers submit to journals, they entrust their findings and ideas to editors and peer reviewers who are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review. Inherent trust in peer review is built on the ethical conduct of authors, editors and reviewers, and on the respect of this confidentiality. If such confidentiality is breached by unethical reviewers who might steal or plagiarize the authors' ideas, researchers will lose trust in peer review and may resist submitting their findings to that journal. Science loses as a result, scientific and medical advances slow down, knowledge may become scarce, and it is unlikely that increasing bias in the literature will be detected or eliminated. In such a climate, society will ultimately be deprived from scientific and medical advances. Despite a rise in documented cases of abused peer review, there is still a relative lack of qualitative and quantitative studies on reviewer-related misconduct, most likely because evidence is difficult to come by. Our paper presents an assessment of editors' and reviewers' responsibilities in preserving the confidentiality of manuscripts during the peer review process, in response to a 2016 case of intellectual property theft by a reviewer. Our main objectives are to propose additional measures that would offer protection of authors' intellectual ideas from predatory reviewers, and increase researchers' awareness of the responsible reviewing of journal articles and reporting of biomedical research.

SUBMITTER: Al-Khatib A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6310661 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Al-Khatib Aceil A Teixeira da Silva Jaime A JA

Science and engineering ethics 20170913 1

Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data (as is increasingly required) to a journal. When researchers submit to journals, they entrust their findings and ideas to editors and peer reviewers who are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review. Inherent trust in peer review is built on the ethical conduct of authors, editors and reviewers, and on the respect of this ...[more]

PMID: 28905258

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and principal findingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and significanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted. RESULTS:Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n?=?90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n?=?68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range?=?3 to 64) which were not weighted (n?=?91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n?=?78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n?=?91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n?=?90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool. CONCLUSION:There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals and groups who write systematic reviews and meta-analyses in evidence-based medicine regularly carry out literature searches across multiple search engines linked to different bibliographic databases, and thus have an urgent need for a suitable metasearch engine to save time spent on repeated searches and to remove duplicate publications from initial consideration. Unlike general users who generally carry out searches to find a few highly relevant (or highly recent) articles, systematic reviewers seek to obtain a comprehensive set of articles on a given topic, satisfying specific criteria. This creates special requirements and challenges for metasearch engine design and implementation.MethodsWe created a federated search tool that is connected to five databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Retrieved bibliographic records were shown online; optionally, results could be de-duplicated and exported in both BibTex and XML format.ResultsThe query interface was extensively modified in response to feedback from users within our team. Besides a general search track and one focused on human-related articles, we also added search tracks optimized to identify case reports and systematic reviews. Although users could modify preset search options, they were rarely if ever altered in practice. Up to several thousand retrieved records could be exported within a few minutes. De-duplication of records returned from multiple databases was carried out in a prioritized fashion that favored retaining citations returned from PubMed.ConclusionsSystematic reviewers are used to formulating complex queries using strategies and search tags that are specific for individual databases. Metta offers a different approach that may save substantial time but which requires modification of current search strategies and better indexing of randomized controlled trial articles. We envision Metta as one piece of a multi-tool pipeline that will assist systematic reviewers in retrieving, filtering and assessing publications. As such, Metta may find wide utility for anyone who is carrying out a comprehensive search of the biomedical literature.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers. DESIGN AND SETTING:We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers. RESULTS:We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36%?and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere. CONCLUSIONS:Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02961036.

Project description:BackgroundPredatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.MethodsPotential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.ResultsA total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.ConclusionsAuthors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

Dataset Information

Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Publications

Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets