J Korean Med Sci.  2014 Nov;29(11):1450-1452. 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450.

Safeguarding the Integrity of Science Communication by Restraining 'Rational Cheating' in Peer Review

• Barroga EF

• KMID: 2069923
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1450

Abstract

Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.

Keyword

Peer Review; Rational Cheating; Reviewer; Science Communication

MeSH Terms

Peer Review, Research/*ethics
Societies, Medical/ethics

Reference

1. Gasparyan AY. Peer review in scholarly biomedical journals: a few things that make a big difference. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:970–971.

2. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006; 99:178–182.

3. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions. Scientometrics. 2005; 63:297–320.

4. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2013; 54:600–608.

5. Paolucci M, Grimaldo F. Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics. 2014; 99:663–688.

6. Gasparyan AY. Researchers and editors at the heart of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:161–163.

7. Barroga EF. Cascading peer review for open-access publishing. Eur Sci Ed. 2013; 39:90–91.

8. Resnik DB, Shamoo AE. The singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res. 2011; 18:71–75.

9. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013; 8:e68397.

10. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012; 53:386–389.

11. Barroga EF, Kojima T. Research study designs: an appraisal for peer reviewers and science editors. Eur Sci Ed. 2013; 39:44–45.

12. Thurner S, Hanel R. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: toward selection of the average. Eur Phys J B. 2011; 84:707–711.

13. Paolucci M, Grimaldo F. Disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review: a simulation. In : Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 3: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems; 2012. p. 1357–1358.

14. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003; 8:75–96.

15. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Takács K. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Res Policy. 2013; 42:287–294.