Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Introduction Research Ethics and Peer-Review
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Introduction Research Ethics and Peer-Review

118
views

Published on

Presentation to a group of students from Utrecht.

Presentation to a group of students from Utrecht.

Published in: Science, Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
118
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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