- CaseCase Closed
Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process
Our journal uses an internally transparent process where throughout the editor or peer review process, authors, editors and reviewers are all aware of the identities of who is involved. Reviewers are also told—when initially solicited to do a peer review—that they will be named on the final article manuscript as a reviewer. Prior to publication, the pre-print version of a text is sent to… - CaseCase Closed
Possible peer review manipulation
…other co-authors. The journal has a copy of the emails exchanged at the time between the reviewer and the corresponding author, the corresponding author and the co-authors, and the email to the corresponding author by the co-author who wrote the comments. The journal has not yet contacted the corresponding author or the reviewer. The journal believes this is a case of peer review manipulation… - Seminars and webinars
North American Seminar 2016: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions
…Download presentation: Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions [PDF, 731Kb] … - CaseCase Closed
Handling undisclosed peer reviewer conflict
Some authors from a company recommended a peer reviewer on submitting their manuscript, who was then asked to review the manuscript. This reviewer recommended acceptance without change. One other reviewer recommended major revision (a methodological reviewer not a content expert) and the third reviewer recommended rejection. The editor found it unusual for a review to recommend acceptance… - CaseCase Closed
Peer reviewer contacted by author
In a single anonymous peer review process, a reviewer gave an author detailed suggestions about improvements in the statistical analysis. The author was asked to revise and resubmit the paper to address these and other reviewers' suggestions. The author, unaware of the reviewer’s identity, subsequently approached the reviewer as a respected colleague at a professional meeting to discuss the… - CaseCase Closed
Sharing by a reviewer on social media
A journal operated double blind peer-review, so the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa. However, the anonymity of the authors is not guaranteed, as the reviewers may discover the identity of the authors (because of the area of research, references, writing style, etc). But rarely can the authors identify the reviewers. The journal received a request from… - Case
Breach of peer review confidentiality
This case concerns a submitted review article that proposes a new theory in a field of research where there are two polarised positions. The original manuscript (R0) underwent peer review and was returned with reports indicating a major revision, which took several months. On submission of the revision, one of the reviewers from the previous round was asked to re-review. That reviewer… - Forum discussion topics
Bias in peer review
October 2021 A recent survey in which we asked COPE members to vote on the diversity, equity and inclusion topics they would like to discuss, bias in peer review was voted the topic of most interest, so we devoted the October 2021 COPE Forum topic to it, where Forum participants discussed the issues. While this important topic… - CaseCase Closed
Transparency of peer review to co-authors
An associate editor of one of our journals has asked whether we can configure our online peer review system to restrict access to reviewer correspondence to corresponding authors. His concern is that some of the review materials (eg, a harsh critique) might be embarrassing for the principal investigator if accessed by a co-author who was a junior investigator or laboratory technician.… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer anonymity in post publication peer review
A journal with an open peer review process (names and reports published alongside articles) accepted an article after assessment by three peer reviewers. Two reviewers were positive and the third reviewer raised some concerns about the methodology. A revised version of the manuscript was published alongside the three peer reviewer reports and the authors’ response After… - CaseCase Closed
Inquiry concerning potential peer reviewer misconduct
A journal received the recommendation of a peer reviewer which expressed doubts about the validity of some of the data in an article. The editor-in-chief got in touch directly with the author and mediated to have the data validated by an outside contributor. The authors responded by providing data validation by a colleague, who is now becoming a potential coauthor. The initial data were… - CaseCase Closed
Compromised peer review (unpublished)
The Forum agreed that this case was brought about by the failure of journal processes and their peer review system. Good practice is always to check the names, addresses and email contacts of reviewers, and especially those that are recommended by authors. Editors should never use only the preferred reviewer. While the Forum recognise that finding reviewers can be difficult and that the peer… - Case
Anonymous peer review – author requesting manuscript file
…made. The author now wishes to see the manuscript files, including the names of the reviewers, as well as the names of those we approached to review the manuscripts but declined. We have refused because the journal operates a peer review policy whereby the authors are blinded to the reviewers’ identities. We feel that this would violate our reviewers’ right to… - CaseCase Closed
Should a journal disclose peer reviewer names?
A journal received a manuscript in July concerning the conditions surrounding the ending of an individual’s contract of employment. Following peer review and revision, the manuscript was accepted and published in October of the same year. Two years later, the journal received a letter from a lawyer representing a client who was suing the former employer discussed in the article. The author of… - CaseCase Closed
Online posting of confidential draft by peer reviewer
Shortly before publication, I received an email from the authors of a systematic review telling me that a version of the paper as first submitted to the journal for peer review had appeared on the website of a campaign group based in the USA. It was clear that the version of the document posted on the website was the same as the version supplied to the journal's peer reviewers. Further… - CaseCase Closed
Author of rejected paper publicly names and criticises peer reviewer
The first author of a paper rejected by our journal publicly identified one of the four peer reviewers for the paper by name. She did this during a media interview conducted after the paper was published by another journal. The first author implied in that interview and subsequently on Twitter that the paper was rejected because of that person's review and also claimed the reviewer did not… - Case
Suspicion of breach of proper peer reviewer behaviour
An author submitted a paper for peer review with journal X on a topic that refers to a very recently published paper (ie, highly timely). The peer review was rather protracted because of long response times, reviewer substitution and the need to re-review the manuscript after a major revision. Just before the second decision was rendered, the author contacted the editor-in-chief with… - CaseOn-going
Compromised peer review system in published papers
…students or collaborators. Author A asked the preferred reviewers (or the people behind the accounts) to submit favourable reviews of the papers and turn them around quickly or author A submitted the reviews via the dummy account. Author A admitted employing this system for a number of papers, but not every paper, although we found similar patterns of peer review activity for these also. Author A states… - CaseCase Closed
Reviewer's identity revealed
The journal operates a double blind peer review system. Because the journal is small, it does not use a platform for reviews, so reviewers are sent a Word document containing the manuscript and an evaluation form to complete, in which they can leave their comments. However, some reviewers choose to comment directly on the Word document. Most of these comments are anonymised by appearing as…