You are here

Home Peer review processes

Peer review

Diversity and inclusivity in peer review. Podcast with Professor Andy Hor, Hong Kong University

A discussion in 2018 with Charon Pierson, COPE Secretary and Andy Hor, Vice President of Research at Hong Kong University. An institutional perspective on training early career researchers within a culture of diversity and inclusivity.

About this resource

Diversity and inclusivity in peer review. Podcast with Professor Andy Hor, Hong Kong University

A discussion with Charon Pierson, COPE Secretary and Andy Hor, Vice President of Research at Hong Kong University. An institutional perspective on training early career researchers within a culture of diversity and inclusivity.

 

Full page history

  • 11 October 2019

    Sticky at top of list

  • 20 September 2018

    First iteration of page.

    View revision

Introduction

The topic for discussion at our March 2020 COPE Forum asked questions around the editing of reviewer comments.

News

Letter from COPE: June 2020

At this time we pay our respects to the memory of George Floyd, whose brutal killing has amplified issues of systemic racism in our society. We wish to voice our horror and outrage at the egregious violence, injustice, and marginalisation faced by people of colour in the US and throughout the world. We support all who stand against prejudice and discrimination of any kind.

News

In the news: June 2020

Each month COPE Council members gather and share publication ethics news. This month the news includes articles on diversity, open access, COVID-19, and more.

Sharing by a reviewer on social media

Case number: 
20-04
Case text (Anonymised): 

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 a reviewer to share a post on twitter, which may disclose the reviewer’s identity to the authors.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

  • Does the double-blind peer-review process apply after publication?
  • What should be the position of a journal when reviewers ask to share their report or experience on social media?
Advice: 

The journal’s course of action in this case needs to be guided by the objective. The point of double blind peer review is to reduce bias during the review process. While of course anonymity of the authors ends upon publication of the work, anonymity of the reviewers’ identity in a double blind peer review process typically continues after publication because of the contract that the journal has made with its reviewers. As the right of confidentiality lies with the reviewer, if the reviewer wants to reveal the information, then it is reasonable to consider granting that request. However, many journals require permission from the author after their paper is published if the reviewer is going to disclose information, and this is considered to be a good practice to follow.

Resolution: 
On-going
Year: 
2020
Classifications: 
Allegations of misconduct
Misconduct/questionable behaviour
Misconduct/questionable behaviour (reviewer)
Journal management
Miscellaneous
Social media
Peer review processes
Peer review
Peer review
Post-Publication Peer Review
News

Case discussion: Editing peer review comments

Peer reviewers provide their own intellectual property to the important work of reporting research. Sometimes, though, their comments may not align with a journal’s style or requirements, or can stray into the realm of what some call “hostile reviews”. Also, sometimes reviewers miss the mark and either do not understand the paper or parts of it, or include content that is factually incorrect. What is an editor to do in their effort to balance the interests of the authors, reviewers, journals

Editing of reviewer comments: Forum discussion topic March 2020

Peer reviewers are asked to contribute intellectual work to assess and improve scholarly publications. As with all work, the quality and characteristics of peer reviews vary. Editors responsibilities include support not only to the peer reviewers who typically volunteer the time and knowledge but also to the authors, who reasonably should expect non-conflicted, thoughtful, unbiased, thorough reviews of the work in question and to not be subjected to hostile or personal attacks.

News

In the news: February Digest

Misconduct

Translation plagiarism is a type of disguised plagiarism which occurs when authorship credit is taken by someone who republishes the work of someone else, but in a different language. The difficulty of identifying this type of plagiarism is explored and the potential damage done by it, in the field of philosophy, examined.

https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12188

Reproducibility of methodology

Case number: 
19-13
Case text (Anonymised): 

A whistle blower contacted journal A regarding two published articles. The articles focus on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. The whistle blower raised concerns about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used.

The authors were contacted to provide an explanation of the methodology as there was a lack of clarity in the articles. The corresponding author responded with a clear explanation of how they implemented the study but concerns about how this would be reproduced by others persisted.

Consequently, a post-publication peer review was conducted. Unfortunately, the post-publication peer review provided no comment on the energy healing methodology that was implemented. The reviewer focused only on the methodological elements that gave no cause for concern, and summarised that the methods are suitable and valid.

Given this review, the editor who handled the manuscript feels that no editorial action is required. However, concerns surrounding the energy healing methodology and its reproducibility remain. It has been suggested that the reviewer is contacted again for an assessment of the specific energy healing techniques used in these studies.

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

  • If the reviewer or the handling editor determine that the methodology is sound but not reproducible, how should the journal proceed?
Advice: 

A suggestion from the Forum was perhaps to ask at least one other post-publication peer reviewer to specifically comment on this particular issue.

This is an ongoing problem in this field. Some techniques that people use for healing touch and many other types of hands-on healing are difficult to standardise. People who work in this field and use this technology most likely understand this and so the problem is probably more for people who are uninitiated. A suggestion was that there needs to be commentary in the article by the author about the difficulties of reproducing the techniques if that was not sufficiently addressed in the discussion.

A discussion of the limitations of the study could be addressed in the journal, through the usual post publication discussion process or letters to the editor.

Another view was that in a scientific publication, if the method is not reproducible, then it is not considered science. Reproducibility is the foundation to science and so if it is not reproducible, should it be published? However, the post publication review suggested the methodology is sound.

Resolution: 
On-going
Year: 
2019
Classifications: 
Data and reproducibility
Ethical oversight
Questionable/unethical research
Questionable/unethical treatments
Peer review processes
Peer review
Peer review
Post-Publication Peer Review

COPE Digest: Peer Review Week, September 2019 (Volume 7, Issue 9)

In this issue

Pages