Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Process

Question

Ayush Raj · Accepted Answer

Peer review ensures the quality and integrity of academic publishing. Reviewers must adhere to strict ethical duties.

Core Ethical Guidelines

Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a private document. Do not share its content, data, or ideas, and never use the unpublished work for personal gain.
Objectivity: Base the evaluation only on scientific merit. Disclose all conflicts of interest (COI) and eliminate personal or institutional biases.
Timeliness & Competence: Accept reviews only for work within your expertise and submit the report by the deadline. Promptly notify the editor of any inability to complete the review.
Constructive Criticism: Provide feedback that is respectful, specific, and aimed at improving the manuscript, focusing on the science, not the author.
Integrity: Never plagiarize or appropriate content. Alert the editor immediately to suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication.
Accountability: Cooperate with the editor in all matters and adhere to the journal's stated review model.

(Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017))

The Peer Review Process (3 Stages)

Submission & Pre-Review: Author submits. The editor performs an initial screening for scope and compliance; if unsuitable, the manuscript is desk-rejected. If suitable, it is sent to expert reviewers.
Evaluation & Review: Reviewers independently assess the work (methodology, originality, conclusions) and submit a detailed report to the editor with a recommendation (Accept, Revise, Reject).

Decision & Revision: The editor issues a decision. If revisions are requested, the author modifies the manuscript and submits a point-by-point response. The paper may be sent for a second round review before the editor makes the final acceptance or rejection.

(International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2023))

Recent cases of Data Omission:

Data omission and manipulation, a form of research falsification, can have monumental consequences for scientific direction and public health.

Case 1. Alzheimer's Research: The Science Magazine Investigation (2022)

Core Issue: Allegations of manipulated images and omitted data in a seminal (Lesné et al.(2006)) which provided key evidence linking a specific amyloid protein (Aβ*56) to memory loss, driving the dominant amyloid cascade hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease.

Nature of Omission: Data that potentially did not support the clear link between Aβ*56 and memory loss was allegedly withheld or altered.

Consequence: The paper, cited over 2,000 times, is foundational to decades of Alzheimer's research and billions in drug development. Its credibility crisis has sparked widespread re-evaluation of the entire research field.

Outcome: The paper is currently under formal investigation by the journal Nature, with some co-authors requesting retraction due to the data integrity concerns.

(Ciller, C. (2022))

Case2. COVID-19 Drug Research: The Lancet Hydroxychloroquine Omission (2020)

Core Issue: A high-profile observational study on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and COVID-19 published in The Lancet (2020) relied on unverifiable data from the company Surgisphere.

Nature of Omission: When questioned about critical inconsistencies in the findings, Surgisphere refused to share the full, underlying raw dataset for independent audit, effectively omitting the crucial data required for validation.

Consequence: Based largely on this study, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other regulators paused major HCQ clinical trials, creating confusion and impacting global pandemic research efforts.

Outcome: The authors retracted the paper just weeks after publication because they could no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources, underscoring the necessity of transparent data access.

(The Lancet Editors. (2020))

Loading...

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Process

1 Answer

Question Stats

Related Questions