This document discusses ethics and peer review in scientific publishing. It introduces peer review as a process where authors ask third parties, usually publishers, to verify the quality of their work. The publisher then does an internal check and sends the paper to experts to review. The authors then revise the paper based on reviewer comments before a final decision is made on whether to publish. The document outlines some potential ethical issues around authorship, data handling, and editorial oversight during peer review and publication. It provides examples of how authors, editors, or reviewers could act unethically at different stages of the peer review process.

1. Martyn Rittman, Ph.D.
Basel, 16 April 2014
Ethics and Peer Review

2.  Ethics and Peer Review
• An introduction to peer review
• Ethical problems around peer review and publishing
• Case studies
2

3.  Peer Review
The first principle is that you
must not fool yourself and you
are the easiest person to fool.
Richard Feynman
3

4.  Peer Review
4
• Verify accuracy
• Check novelty
• Establish authorship
• Make research available
• Objective assessment

5.  Peer Review
The author asks a third party to verify the quality of
their work, usually a publisher.
5
Submission

6.  Peer Review
The author asks a third party to verify the quality of
their work, usually a publisher.
The publisher does an internal check, possibly with
the assistance of an external editor.
6
Submission
Pre‐check

7.  Peer Review
The author asks a third party to verify the quality of
their work, usually a publisher.
The publisher does an internal check, possibly with
the assistance of an external editor.
The publisher sends the paper to acknowledged
experts in the field who comment on the paper.
7
Submission
Pre‐check
Peer review

8.  Peer Review
The author asks a third party to verify the quality of
their work, usually a publisher.
The publisher does an internal check, possibly with
the assistance of an external editor.
The publisher sends the paper to acknowledged
experts in the field who comment on the paper.
The manuscript goes back to the authors to
implement the comments.
8
Submission
Pre‐check
Peer review
Revision

9.  Peer Review
The author asks a third party to verify the quality of
their work, usually a publisher.
The publisher does an internal check, possibly with
the assistance of an external editor.
The publisher sends the paper to acknowledged
experts in the field who comment on the paper.
The manuscript goes back to the authors to
implement the comments.
An expert affiliated with the publisher decides
whether the paper is suitable to publish.
9
Submission
Pre‐check
Peer review
Revision
Final decision

10.  Ethics
Ethics categories:
• Authorship
• Data
• Editorial oversight
10
Establish ownership
Novel and accurate
Objectivity

11.  Authorship
How do you cheat as an author on a paper?
11

12.  Data
• Honorary authorship
• False authors
• Submit in someone else’s name
• Salami slicing
• Miss off a major contributor
• Plagiarism (copy someone else’s work)
• Self-plagiarism (copy your own previously published
work)
12

13.  Data
How many ways can you act unethically with data?
13

14.  Data
• Make up the data
• Steal someone else’s data (without citation)
• Republish old data
• Unethical use of subjects
– No informed consent
– Coercion (force someone to take part)
14

15.  Editorial Oversight
How can:
• Authors
• Editors
• Peer reviewers
cheat the peer review system?
15

16.  Editorial Oversight
Authors:
• Peer review your own paper
• Resubmit an old paper
• Get your mates to accept/review the paper (CoIs)
Editors:
• Skip peer review
• Ignore peer review recommendations
• Ignore complaints about potential unethical behaviour
16

17.  Editorial Oversight
Peer reviewers:
• Not look at the paper properly
• Stall the process
• Steal ideas in the paper and publish them later
• Send the paper to someone else
• Lie in their peer review
• Not disclose conflicts of interest
17

18.  What Can an Editor do?
Investigate:
• Get a second opinion
• Refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics
• Contact author’s university/funding body/
ethics committee
18
Publish (or not):
• Reject
• Correct
• Expression of concern
• Retract

19.  Case Studies
In groups of five:
• Choose two case studies
• Read, discuss and prepare conclusions
19