| Title |
Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford, Shyamal Peddada |
| Abstract |
This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 63 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 27% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 15 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 27 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,573,149
of 25,804,096 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#114
of 976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,775
of 96,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,804,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 96,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them