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
News

In the news: January 2021

Publication ethics news January 2021

Each month, COPE Council members find and share publication ethics news. This month the news includes articles on image manipulation, peer review, preprints, and more.

News

Peer review cases: Spanish translations

Following positive feedback from our peer review workshops, we are pleased to introduce Spanish translations of the peer review cases used at the workshops, with advice from the COPE Forum.

Durante la Semana de la revisión por pares (#PeerRevWk20) celebramos un taller basado en cuatro casos que llegaron al COPE Forum para examen crítico y solicitud de asesoramiento porotros miembros COPE.

El autor principal de un artículo rechazado para su publicación identificó y nombró de forma pública a uno de los cuatro revisores durante una entrevista con los medios de comunicación tras publicar el artículo en otra revista. El autor dio a entender en la entrevista y más tarde en Twitter que el artículo había sido rechazado por la revisión de este revisor y afirmó que el revisor no había revelado conflictos de interés relevantes.

About this resource

Based on case 16-12

https://publicationethics.org/case/author-rejected-paper-publicly-names-...

Full page history

Un autor potencial se puso en contacto con la oficina editorial de una revista para solicitar que ciertos expertos que participaron en la elaboración de guías sobre un tema particular no participasen en la revisión de su artículo. El autor nombró específicamente a ciertos de estos expertos, entre los que se incluía a miembros del consejo editorial de la revista.

About this resource

Based on case 16-08 https://publicationethics.org/case/author-requests-certain-experts-not-b...

Full page history

Al percatarse de un alto volumen de envíos del autor A, el editor X mostró su preocupación sobre los revisores sugeridos por el autor y sus comentarios. El autor A había sugerido en la mayoría de los casos los mismos revisores para todos los envíos, los revisores sugeridos tenían direcciones de correo electrónico imposibles de verificar, los comentarios se devolvían muy rápido (en 24 horas) y eran, por norma general, breves y positivos, limitándose a errores gramaticales. Todos los revisores sugeridos se decantaban por la aceptación inmediata o sujeta a revisiones menores.

About this resource

Based on case 12-12 https://publicationethics.org/case/compromised-peer-review-system-publis...

Full page history

La oficina editorial tuvo conocimiento de una carta de decisión en la que un editor solicitaba a un autor que citase un artículo publicado por el propio editor. Una investigación en mayor profundidad destapó un patrón de comportamiento preocupante: el editor solicitaba en las cartas (incluidos también los comentarios de los revisores) que se añadiesen citaciones de sus trabajos en más de 50 casos, cifra que triplicaba el número de veces que el editor solicitaba añadir citaciones de trabajos en los que no aparecía como coautor.

About this resource

Based on case 18-03: https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-and-reviewers-requiring-author...

Full page history

Reviewer's identity revealed

Case number: 
20-14
Case text (Anonymised): 

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 user1 or some other nickname. However, sometimes a reviewer will comment using their real name. Typically, the editor must edit each comment and re-do these to remove the reviewer´s name and avoid revealing their identity.

However, is the reviewer implicitly deciding to reveal their identity using their real name when commenting? It takes a long time to mask the identity of the reviewer, as each comment must be deleted and redone.

Question(s) for the Forum

  • Would it be a breach of contract to send the document with the reviewer’s identity revealed to the author?
Advice: 

The Forum suggested that the editor simply tell the reviewers not to leave their comments on the Word document. The journal could also look at their policies to make it clear to reviewers what they should do. The style of peer review is a matter of journal policy, not contract. The double blind peer review system means that the reviewer and author identities are not known. If the reviewer’s identity is revealed to the author, it may cause problems if the author knows the reviewer, or disagrees with their decision, or feels their decision was biased. This could result in the editor having to find additional reviewers.

If the problem is the time it takes for the editor to mask the reviewer comments from the Word file, the journal could consider using PDF files instead of Word files, or the Word file can be saved as a PDF but without including the tracked changes.

Some ideas on changing the author name on comments in Word documents: four ideas to change author names for comment; and make reviewer comments anonymous.

Year: 
2020
Classifications: 
Peer review processes
Peer review
Peer review
Peer-review process
News

Letter from the COPE Chair: September 2020

Trust in peer review

September sees the sixth Peer Review Week taking place (21 - 25 September), which has now become something of an established fixture in the research community calendar. The theme for this year is ‘trust’; a focus which resonates strongly with the core values and goals of COPE, going hand in hand with ethical reliability and responsible leadership.

Pages