| Title |
Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-012-9426-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anton Oleinik |
| Abstract |
Scientific communication takes place at two registers: first, interactions with colleagues in close proximity-members of a network, school of thought or circle; second, depersonalised transactions among a potentially unlimited number of scholars can be involved (e.g., author and readers). The interference between the two registers in the process of peer review produces a drift toward conflict of interest. Three particular cases of peer review are differentiated: journal submissions, grant applications and applications for tenure. The current conflict of interest policies do not cover all these areas. Furthermore, they have a number of flaws, which involves an excessive reliance on scholars' personal integrity. Conflicts of interest could be managed more efficiently if several elements and rules of the judicial process were accepted in science. The analysis relies on both primary and secondary data with a particular focus on Canada. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Professor | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 25% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 December 2023.
All research outputs
#16,487,883
of 25,051,161 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#720
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,135
of 293,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,051,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.