Problems with Reviewing(2)
There are some ethical issues that surround the reviewing of manuscripts or grants and that are included in complaints about the peer review process. These are important issues that you must keep in mind should you ever be in the position of a reviewer. Obtaining a secondary citation for his own publication in the guise of manuscript improvement. A common complaint against reviewers for scientific journals is that they will require the author to include a reference to their own (the reviewer's) work before they will approve publication of the manuscript. It is difficult to adjudicate in this kind of conflict because the reviewer may feel justifiably that his work should be referenced in the paper. Afterall, he was selected to review the manuscript because he had expertise in the field, frequently judged from publications within the field. On the other hand, some institutions use citation indices, measures of how many times a given paper is referenced, in making decisions about promotion. Therefore, it is in any author's best interest to obtain as many references to his work as possible. However, it would be unethical to require such a reference when it was inappropriate. Who is to decide this issue? At a preliminary stage, it is the author's responsibility to decide whether he wants to include the reference or not. If he decides not to include the reference in the manuscript, then it is the responsibility of the editor to decide whether the original requirement of the reviewer was justified and whether to uphold it or deny it. Sometimes these can be tricky decisions. Pirating the topic of an article. Reviewers are in a wonderful position to obtain new ideas for research. This includes reviewers for journals and reviewers from granting agency review panels. Such researchers are exposed to more new ideas than most of the rest of the research community. It would be impossible to say what percentage of research ideas might have come from this source because reading publications in the journals and talking to other scientists are also sources of ideas. In fact, any of these sources is legitimate. On the other hand, it would be unethical for a reviewer to reject the manuscript of an author and then write his own manuscript, incorporating the same ideas he reviewed. There have been reports of unfunded grant proposals which resulted in funded grant proposals by one of the reviewers. Again, it would be difficult to say how common this event may be. Keep in mind, however, that it would be ethical for a reviewer to reject a grant proposal because he thought the investigator was wrong and then to submit, for funding, a proposal with the opposite point of view. In this case, the reviewer has not stolen the idea of the original author; his idea is, in fact, opposite to the original one. Providing reverse criticism on a second review. It isn't clear to me how common this problem is. It certainly would be unethical to knowingly give the reverse criticism on a second review of a manuscript. On the other hand, scientists, like other people, change their minds from time-to-time. Therefore, it might be possible for such a mind change to occur between one review of a manuscript and another. This happens more often in evolving fields than in long-established, stable fields. As an example, take the review of research protocols involving animals. This review process is fairly new, having been instituted about 1985 in most institutions. Over the time since it began, the nature of the review process has changed as the understanding of animal welfare issues by the review committees has changed. In addition, the laws regarding animal welfare have changed over that time. As a result of these changes, it is quite possible that a protocol approved in 1986 would not be approved today. Additional information or justification or changes in some procedures might be required before the protocol could be approved. A similar change could occur in the review of research manuscripts for journals. For example, research involving the use of paralyzed, unanesthetized animals was published in the 1960s by most journals. Today, it would be rejected by most journals on the basis of its violation of animal welfare. Quibbling excessively over minor points. Some journals and some reviewers are noted for the propensity to bother authors about minor points in the manuscript. Most authors want their written work to communicate as effectively as possible; they receive criticisms from reviewers in the spirit that it is usually offered. Conversely, no one likes to be "hassled" unnecessarily. Many authors will select a journal based on the adequacy and fairness of its reviews, avoiding "prestigious" journals that delay publication for reasons that have little to do with either science or communication. Blocking publication for invalid or nonscientific reasons. Sometimes reviewers with influence can block publication of scientific articles that disagree with them, or that they disagree with, even though they have no scientific basis for doing so. For example, a certain Nobel laureate lamented publicly, that, having blocked publication in several journals of a certain measurement that was at variance with values he had published, he was unable to block it in a journal for which he was not an editor. Today the blocked measurements are the values accepted by most people in the field. Again, the ethics here are anything but clear. If a reviewer believes an author is wrong, is he not justified in trying to prevent publication of the author's ideas? The Nobel laureate had no other reason for blocking the publication than that he disagreed with the observations. But, is that unethical? I think it is! If a scientist's observations are made using good scientific methods and he believes that his conclusions are justified and correct, he should have no problem defending his position, even in the face of conflicting evidence. To block publication of that evidence in protection of his own position is to prevent the advancement of science. It is, therefore, unethical.
There are also some important ethical issues surrounding the editing of manuscripts. Only a small fraction of scientists ever become editors, but perhaps these issues, if not directly applicable to your future work, can be communicated to editors during the review process.
Failing to respond to inquiries from authors.
This may not be unethical but it certainly is discourteous. On the other hand, it may be an indicator that something unethical is taking place. Perhaps one of those problems below is the cause of the failure to reply.
Excessively delaying review without explanation.
Like any transaction between people, the review process should occur in a timely manner. Every editor was once, or still is, an author. He knows what it is like to wait for the review of a paper which takes too long. This is especially irritating when the paper is eventually rejected because it delays possible submission to another journal. Not only does that irritate the author, but it may delay important progress in the area of the research. Again, this is not so much unethical as it is discourteous behavior.
Losing a manuscript without advising authors.
The same discussion applies here. Anyone who cannot see the discourtesy here or is not sensitive to it, should not be an editor!
Deleting portions of a manuscript without coordination.
In some cases, editors may delete portions, sometimes substantial portions of a manuscript without getting the approval or even notifying the authors. Usually, the changes or deletions are not large, but sometimes changing even a single word or altering the tense or other characteristic of a word can radically change the meaning of a sentence.
There are two ways in which this can occur. The first implies no intent to deceive the author. In fact, the purpose for the change is to improve the manuscript. Frequently, this kind of change is not done by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, but by the copy editor, the person hired to check the manuscript for grammar and syntax and to be certain that the format of the manuscript is that used by the journal. Sometimes the copy editor may find a word or phrase which does not appear to be correct grammatically or accurate. In this circumstance, the copy editor should check with the author before making any change, but that doesn't always happen. Sometimes the author will obtain the galley proof with the change in it and not notice the change. In that case, it is the author's fault because he is responsible for seeing that the galley proof presents the manuscript the way he submitted it. Nevertheless, a good copy editor will check every change with the author before it is made.
The second way changes or deletions can occur is unethical. Frequently, a reviewer will find that a paper is too long, primarily because it contains a section or sections which are not directly relevant to the study, data or conclusions. He may require the author to remove it before the manuscript will be acceptable for publication. It is then the decision of the author whether to remove the section and have the paper published by that journal or withdraw the manuscript from consideration and resubmit it elsewhere. This is part of the normal review process; there is nothing unethical about it. On the other hand, if the editor (or the reviewer) requires removal of a section of a manuscript, or worse, removes it without getting approval of the author, simply because it contradicts one of his own favorite positions, then that is unethical. This is a problem similar to that discussed above under
Blocking publication for invalid or nonscientific reasons.
Abetting a reviewer in obtaining secondary citations.
An editor who knows that a reviewer is requiring an author to include a reference to the reviewer's own work in order to obtain a secondary citation should override the reviewer. In fact, he probably should disallow further reviewing by this person. Whether he will do this depends upon the specific people involved and how certain they are of their own positions in the scientific community. It is a shame when that sort of comment is made, but
the truth isn't always pleasant.
|