Peer review

Showing 1–10 of 96 results.

1. Should we have had author consent for a randomised controlled trial of a peer review?

   Case number: 

   97-02

   Year: 

   1997

   • Peer review processes
   • Peer review

   • Peer review

   • Participant consent

   • Ethical oversight

2. The reviewer writes comments that he doesn’t want the author to see

   Case number: 

   97-08

   Year: 

   1997

   • Peer review processes
   • Peer review

   • Peer review
   • Peer-review process

3. Who ensures the integrity of the editor?

   Case number: 

   99-22

   Year: 

   1999

   • Ghost authorship

   • Journal management
   • Editorial independence

   • Editorial independence
   • Relation to society/owner

   • Funder/sponsor role

   • Complaints and appeals
   • Misconduct/questionable behaviour

   • Misconduct/questionable behaviour
   • Misconduct/questionable behaviour (editor)
   • Misconduct/questionable behaviour (society/journal owner)

   • Editorial decisions

   • Whistleblowers

   • Authorship and contributorship

   • Peer review processes

   • Allegations of misconduct

4. Publication bias arising from an editor’s activities

   Case number: 

   99-23

   Year: 

   1999

   • Peer review processes
   • Peer review

   • Editorial decisions
   • Peer review

5. Editorial compliance with duplicate publication

   Case number: 

   00-03

   Year: 

   2000

   • Copyright

   • Peer review processes
   • Peer review

   • Editorial decisions
   • Peer review

   • Post-publication discussions and corrections
   • Redundant/duplicate publication

   • Redundant/duplicate publication

   • Intellectual property

6. Retrospective correction: how far back do we go?

   Case number: 

   00-21

   Year: 

   2000

   • Conflict of interest

   • Correction of the literature
   • Correction of the literature, corrections
   • Correction of the literature, retractions

   • Mistakes
   • Mistakes (journal)

   • Peer review processes
   • Peer review

   • Editorial decisions
   • Peer review

   • Ethical oversight
   • Questionable/unethical research

   • Protection of subject (human)
   • Questionable/unethical research

   • Post-publication discussions and corrections

   • Journal management

7. Authorship dispute

   Case number: 

   00-29

   Year: 

   2000

   • Authorship and contributorship
   • Authorship

   • Authorship
   • Changes in authorship
   • Disputed authorship

   • Editorial decisions

   • Peer review processes

8. Alleged plagiarism

   Case number: 

   00-33

   Year: 

   2000

   • Copyright

   • Editorial decisions

   • Intellectual property
   • Plagiarism

   • Plagiarism
   • Plagiarism (published article)

   • Research integrity/ethics investigations

   • Peer review processes

   • Ethical oversight

9. Contacting Research Ethics Committees with concerns over studies

   Case number: 

   02-11

   Year: 

   2002

   • Peer review processes
   • Peer review

   • Peer review
   • Peer-review process

   • Ethical oversight
   • Questionable/unethical research

   • Ethical review/approval
   • Questionable/unethical research

10. An author thinks that a journal’s decision not to publish is ethically incorrect

    Case number: 

    03-02

    Year: 

    2003

    • Conflict of interest
    • Conflict of interest (author)

    • Journal management
    • Miscellaneous

    • Legal issues

    • Peer review processes
    • Peer review

    • Editorial decisions

    • Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

Pages