Ethics of Peer Review 2

med.mui.ac.ir

Ethics of Peer Review 2

Ethics of Peer

Review

Mostafavi SN

Department of Pediatric infectious Disease

Isfahan University of Medical Science


Introduction

Main aim of medical journals is to

select, through peer review, the high

quality science

So the entire process should be

thorough, objective and fair

Almost every aspect involve

important principles and ethics


Peer review

Cornerstone of modern science

Ensure the scientific quality of the

papers and researches

Set standards of the research on

the field

Set subtler standards of

collegiality, behavior, and ethics


Ideal reviewer

Expertise, professional

No conflicts of interest

Objectivity, think clearly and

logically, good judgment

Write a good critique

Reliable in returning reviews

Do the review in the allotted time


Conflict of Interest

Competing interest means some fact that

if revealed later, would make a

reasonable reader feel misled or deceived or

a reviewer feels defensive

May influence the judgment

May be personal, commercial,

political, academic, or financial or

scientific


Ethical issues

Before deciding to review

Throughout the review process

After submitting the reviews


Before deciding to review

Appropriate expertise?

Conflicts of interest?

The time?

The journal’s guidelines?


Throughout the review 1

Manuscripts are confidential

documents

Not share with your colleagues

Secure place

Not seek help for your review without

permission

Not use the information in the paper

Not provide insights or data


Throughout the review 2

Peer review is a blind process

Don’t contact with the author

Disclose any conflict of interest


Throughout the review 3

Focus on the science

Appropriateness of the paper for the

journal not editorial problems

Be wary of unconscious biases

Do not feel bad about rejecting a flawed

paper


Throughout the review 4

Consider ethical issues

Studies subjects( human, animals)

Misconducts( duplicative publication,

plagiarism, fabricated, falsified, misleading,

undisclosed conflicts of interest, failure to

acknowledge or consider related literature or

data that conflict with the authors’ findings or

viewpoint)


Throughout the review 5

Writing the review

Professional, informative and constructive

Clear, accurate with citations

Honest

Courteous with collegial style and tone( no

rudeness, personal criticism and locker room

humor)


After submitting the

review

Keep a copy of the review

confidential

Destroy Destroy paper copy and all

working notes

Confident Confident in both the contents of

the paper and the outcome of the

review

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines