Science Editing

Review

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics: Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):12-25. Published online January 25, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.323

1,171 View
72 Download

Abstract PDF: Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are rapidly supplanting human-derived scholarly work in the fast-paced digital age. This necessitates a re-evaluation of our traditional research and publication ethics, which is the focus of this article. We explore the ethical issues that arise when AI chatbots are employed in research and publication. We critically examine the attribution of academic work, strategies for preventing plagiarism, the trustworthiness of AI-generated content, and the integration of empathy into these systems. Current approaches to ethical education, in our opinion, fall short of appropriately addressing these problems. We propose comprehensive initiatives to tackle these emerging ethical concerns. This review also examines the limitations of current chatbot detectors, underscoring the necessity for more sophisticated technology to safeguard academic integrity. The incorporation of AI and chatbots into the research environment is set to transform the way we approach scholarly inquiries. However, our study emphasizes the importance of employing these tools ethically within research and academia. As we move forward, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate on creating robust, flexible strategies and establishing comprehensive regulations that effectively align these potential technological developments with stringent ethical standards. We believe that this is an essential measure to ensure that the advancement of AI chatbots significantly augments the value of scholarly research activities, including publications, rather than introducing potential ethical quandaries.

Original Article

Current status and demand for educational activities on publication ethics by academic organizations in Korea: a descriptive study: Yera Hur, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):64-70. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.298

1,600 View
220 Download
2 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the following overarching issues: the current status of research and publication ethics training conducted in Korean academic organizations and what needs to be done to reinforce research and publication ethics training.
Methods
A survey with 12 items was examined in a pilot survey, followed by a main survey that was distributed to 2,487 academic organizations. A second survey, which contained six additional questions, was dispatched to the same subjects. The results of each survey were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis, content analysis, and comparative analysis.
Results
More than half of the academic organizations provided research and publication ethics training programs, with humanities and social sciences organizations giving more training than the others (χ²=11.190, df=2, P=0.004). The results showed that research and publication ethics training was held mostly once and less than an hour per year, mainly in a lecture format. No significant difference was found in the training content among academic fields. The academic organizations preferred case-based discussion training methods and wanted expert instructors who could give tailored training with examples.
Conclusion
A systematic training program that can develop ethics instructors tailored to specific academic fields and financial support from academic organizations can help scholarly editors resolve the apparent gap between the real and the ideal in ethics training, and ultimately to achieve the competency needed to train their own experts.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics
Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 12. CrossRef

Review

Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?: Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):7-12. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.292

4,971 View
430 Download
3 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF

At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology
Bernd Carsten Stahl, Damian Eke
International Journal of Information Management.2024; 74: 102700. CrossRef
ChatGPT in healthcare: A taxonomy and systematic review
Jianning Li, Amin Dada, Behrus Puladi, Jens Kleesiek, Jan Egger
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine.2024; 245: 108013. CrossRef
“Brave New World” or not?: A mixed-methods study of the relationship between second language writing learners’ perceptions of ChatGPT, behaviors of using ChatGPT, and writing proficiency
Li Dong
Current Psychology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
ChatGPT: Systematic Review, Applications, and Agenda for Multidisciplinary Research
Harjit Singh, Avneet Singh
Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies.2023; 21(2): 193. CrossRef
ChatGPT: More Than a “Weapon of Mass Deception” Ethical Challenges and Responses from the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) Perspective
Alejo José G. Sison, Marco Tulio Daza, Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela, Eduardo C. Garrido-Merchán
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.2023; : 1. CrossRef
Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: a review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer
Casey Watters, Michal K. Lemanski
Frontiers in Big Data.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
ChatGPT, yabancı dil öğrencisinin güvenilir yapay zekâ sohbet arkadaşı mıdır?
Şule ÇINAR YAĞCI, Tugba AYDIN YILDIZ
RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi.2023; (37): 1315. CrossRef

Case Studys

Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors: Woo Jin Son, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):112-116. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.238

4,112 View
86 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

With the goal of improving the publishing ecosystem and promoting transparency in journal publishing, we describe some recent cases in scientific publishing in Korea. The current article summarizes ethical inquiries from domestic journals and publishers, most of whom are members of the Korean Council of Science Editors. We selected 15 representative questions asked during the last 4 years. Those inquiries were classified into hot topics such as plagiarism, duplicate publications, multiple submission, and others (informed consent, copyright, compliance with journal regulations, authors’ responsibilities, and voluntary retraction requests). When plagiarism is suspected, editors and reviewers should assess the situation following the relevant rules and procedures, and if necessary, the manuscript should be rejected. Cases of duplicate publication should be clearly stated in both papers based on the explicit agreement of the editor-in-chief of both journals. As a general rule, the entire content of an article should be published in one issue, but if the article is too long, it may need to be published in two issues. Permission from both journals is required. The abstract and references should be separated accordingly. In cases of copyright conflict, voluntary withdrawal of a paper, or non-compliance with publishing regulations, the manuscript must be withdrawn according to specific procedures (referring to the COPE flow chart). All correspondence regarding a manuscript should be with the corresponding author, who communicates directly with the journal. We hope that these recommendations will help readers in the field of scientific publishing to address issues related to publication ethics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef

Korean court cases regarding research and publication ethics from 2009 to 2020: Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):98-103. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.236

4,596 View
137 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors: You Sun Kim, Dong Soo Han; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):184-188. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.215

4,947 View
113 Download
4 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues
Pankti Mehta, Olena Zimba, Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Birzhan Seiil, Marlen Yessirkepov
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246. CrossRef
Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors
Woo Jin Son, Cheol-Heui Yun
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 112. CrossRef

Original Articles

Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in Korean academic society-published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports: Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):24-33. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.186

5,926 View
133 Download
6 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: The “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” are of increasing importance in an open science environment as a way to increase the transparency and quality of academic society journals. However, little previous research has investigated the application of this new guideline in practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree to which this guideline is being applied by Korean academic society– published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports.
Methods
The researchers investigated the homepages of 59 Korean academic society– published journals to evaluate whether they had adopted the 33 items listed in the guideline. Based on the information available on the journals’ homepages, each item was classified as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ within the four categories of basic journal information, publication ethics, copyright and archiving information, and profit model.
Results
The basic journal information category was generally well-practiced, with the exceptions of the peer review process, readership, and author fees. The copyright and licensing information category was also well-practiced, with the exception of policies on posting accepted articles with third parties and archiving items. However, most items in the publication ethics category were not well practiced, with the exception of authorship and intellectual property. All items in the profit model category were infrequently implemented.
Conclusion
These findings serve as a good indicator for Korean journal editors of areas for improvement. It may be helpful to review journals’ publication policies and homepages to comply with international publishing standards.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The Application of Open Science Potentials in Research Processes: A Comprehensive Literature Review
Maryam Zarghani, Leila Nemati-Anaraki, Shahram Sedghi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Anisa Rowhani-Farid
Libri.2023; 73(2): 167. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Marking the inclusion of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing in PubMed Central and strategies to be promoted to a top-tier journal in the nursing category
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2022; 28(3): 165. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef
The Journal Citation Indicator has arrived for Emerging Sources Citation Index journals, including the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, in June 2021
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2021; 18: 20. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018
Sun Huh
Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef

Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in academic society published journals: Hyung Wook Choi, Ye Jin Choi, Soon Kim; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):112-121. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.171

6,237 View
126 Download
10 Web of Science
13 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: Four international associations, including the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the World Association of Medical Editors declared the third version of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” to ensure transparency and quality in journal publications. This study is aimed at assessing the guidelines from the journals’ websites manually.
Methods
In this study, three researchers investigate the homepages of 781 academic society-published journals that are registered in the Science Citation Index Expanded and whether these journals are effectively adopting these new guidelines. In this paper, 33 items from the guidelines are examined. The 33 items are rearranged into four different categories: basic journal information; publication ethics; copyright and archiving information; and profit model. The researchers count yes or no after checking the adopting status on the journal homepage and dividing into four scales: 0% to 25% for is rarely practiced, 26% to 50% for is poorly practiced, 51% to 75% for is adequately practiced, and 76% to 100% for is well practiced.
Results
Of the 33 items, 10 are found to be poorly or rarely practiced, including readership, data sharing, archiving policies, and profit model information.
Conclusion
It could be the most up-to-date indicator of the current status of applying best practice guidelines. Society journal editors especially from Asia should evaluate their journals regarding “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing”.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Opening up to the open data
Prakash K. Dubey
Journal of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences.2024; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
Prestige of scholarly book publishers—An investigation into criteria, processes, and practices across countries
Eleonora Dagienė
Research Evaluation.2023; 32(2): 356. CrossRef
The use of data repositories in dermatology
Umer Nadir, Loma Dave, Michael D. Yi, Farhana Ikmal Hisham, Murad Alam
Archives of Dermatological Research.2023; 315(6): 1851. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
Cumplimiento de Estándares Internacionales en Publicaciones Arbitradas Académicas Mexicanas y Guatemaltecas
Humberto Emilio Aguilera Arévalo
Revista Académica Sociedad del Conocimiento Cunzac.2022; 2(1): 89. CrossRef
Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals
Brian Jackson
Publications.2021; 9(2): 25. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef
The Journal Citation Indicator has arrived for Emerging Sources Citation Index journals, including the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, in June 2021
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2021; 18: 20. CrossRef
Changes in bibliographic information associated with Korean scientific journals from 2011 to 2019
Yoon Joo Seo, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 11. CrossRef
Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in Korean academic society-published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports
Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 24. CrossRef
Position of Ultrasonography in the scholarly journal network based on bibliometrics and developmental strategies for it to become a top-tier journal
Sun Huh
Ultrasonography.2020; 39(3): 238. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018
Sun Huh
Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef
Recent trends in medical journals’ data sharing policies and statements of data availability
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(06): 493. CrossRef

Reviews

Ethical challenges regarding artificial intelligence in medicine from the perspective of scientific editing and peer review: Seong Ho Park, Young-Hak Kim, Jun Young Lee, Soyoung Yoo, Chong Jai Kim; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):91-98. Published online June 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.164

14,736 View
405 Download
15 Web of Science
17 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This review article aims to highlight several areas in research studies on artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine that currently require additional transparency and explain why additional transparency is needed. Transparency regarding training data, test data and results, interpretation of study results, and the sharing of algorithms and data are major areas for guaranteeing ethical standards in AI research. For transparency in training data, clarifying the biases and errors in training data and the AI algorithms based on these training data prior to their implementation is critical. Furthermore, biases about institutions and socioeconomic groups should be considered. For transparency in test data and test results, authors should state if the test data were collected externally or internally and prospectively or retrospectively at first. It is necessary to distinguish whether datasets were convenience samples consisting of some positive and some negative cases or clinical cohorts. When datasets from multiple institutions were used, authors should report results from each individual institution. Full publication of the results of AI research is also important. For transparency in interpreting study results, authors should interpret the results explicitly and avoid over-interpretation. For transparency by sharing algorithms and data, sharing is required for replication and reproducibility of the research by other researchers. All of the above mentioned high standards regarding transparency of AI research in healthcare should be considered to facilitate the ethical conduct of AI research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Towards Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Medical Devices as a Real-Time Recommender System for Personalised Healthcare: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects
Talha Iqbal, Mehedi Masud, Bilal Amin, Conor Feely, Mary Faherty, Tim Jones, Michelle Tierney, Atif Shahzad, Patricia Vazquez
Health Sciences Review.2024; : 100150. CrossRef
The Knowledge of Students at Bursa Faculty of Medicine towards Artificial Intelligence: A Survey Study
Deniz GÜVEN, Elif Güler KAZANCI, Ayşe ÖREN, Livanur SEVER, Pelin ÜNLÜ
Journal of Bursa Faculty of Medicine.2024; 2(1): 20. CrossRef
New institutional theory and AI: toward rethinking of artificial intelligence in organizations
Ihor Rudko, Aysan Bashirpour Bonab, Maria Fedele, Anna Vittoria Formisano
Journal of Management History.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Artificial intelligence technology in MR neuroimaging. А radiologist’s perspective
G. E. Trufanov, A. Yu. Efimtsev
Russian Journal for Personalized Medicine.2023; 3(1): 6. CrossRef
The minefield of indeterminate thyroid nodules: could artificial intelligence be a suitable diagnostic tool?
Vincenzo Fiorentino, Cristina Pizzimenti, Mariausilia Franchina, Marina Gloria Micali, Fernanda Russotto, Ludovica Pepe, Gaetano Basilio Militi, Pietro Tralongo, Francesco Pierconti, Antonio Ieni, Maurizio Martini, Giovanni Tuccari, Esther Diana Rossi, Gu
Diagnostic Histopathology.2023; 29(8): 396. CrossRef
Ethical, legal, and social considerations of AI-based medical decision-support tools: A scoping review
Anto Čartolovni, Ana Tomičić, Elvira Lazić Mosler
International Journal of Medical Informatics.2022; 161: 104738. CrossRef
Transparency of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Insights from Professionals in Computing and Healthcare Worldwide
Jose Bernal, Claudia Mazo
Applied Sciences.2022; 12(20): 10228. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence in the water domain: Opportunities for responsible use
Neelke Doorn
Science of The Total Environment.2021; 755: 142561. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence for ultrasonography: unique opportunities and challenges
Seong Ho Park
Ultrasonography.2021; 40(1): 3. CrossRef
Key Principles of Clinical Validation, Device Approval, and Insurance Coverage Decisions of Artificial Intelligence
Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Korean Journal of Radiology.2021; 22(3): 442. CrossRef
Is it alright to use artificial intelligence in digital health? A systematic literature review on ethical considerations
Nicholas RJ Möllmann, Milad Mirbabaie, Stefan Stieglitz
Health Informatics Journal.2021; 27(4): 146045822110523. CrossRef
Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels
Mark P. Sendak, Michael Gao, Nathan Brajer, Suresh Balu
npj Digital Medicine.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine
Zeeshan Ahmed, Khalid Mohamed, Saman Zeeshan, XinQi Dong
Database.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
The ethics of machine learning in medical sciences: Where do we stand today?
Treena Basu, Sebastian Engel-Wolf, Olaf Menzer
Indian Journal of Dermatology.2020; 65(5): 358. CrossRef
Key principles of clinical validation, device approval, and insurance coverage decisions of artificial intelligence
Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2020; 63(11): 696. CrossRef
Reflections as 2020 comes to an end: the editing and educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of Scopus and Web of Science in scholarly publishing, journal statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2020; 17: 44. CrossRef
What should medical students know about artificial intelligence in medicine?
Seong Ho Park, Kyung-Hyun Do, Sungwon Kim, Joo Hyun Park, Young-Suk Lim
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 18. CrossRef

Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century: Irene Hames; Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):4-8. Published online February 13, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4

21,574 View
157 Download
4 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective
Christopher J. Peterson, Cynthia Orticio, Kenneth Nugent
Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(3): 394. CrossRef
Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
Russell P. Hall
JID Innovations.2022; 2(6): 100162. CrossRef
JID Innovations and Peer Review
Russell P. Hall
JID Innovations.2021; 1(3): 100056. CrossRef
Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams
Biochemical Pharmacology.2017; 138: 7. CrossRef
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt, Jelte M. Wicherts
PLOS ONE.2017; 12(12): e0189311. CrossRef
Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2. CrossRef
The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2014; 1(2): 52. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search