Back to Browse Journals » Vascular Health and Risk Management » Volume 3 » Issue 1

What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?”

Authors Chris R Triggle, David J Triggle

Published Date May 2007 Volume 2007:3(1) Pages 39—53

DOI http://dx.doi.org/

Published 18 May 2007

Chris R Triggle1, David J Triggle2

1School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; 2School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo NY, USA

Abstract: Peer review is an essential component of the process that is universally applied prior to the acceptance of a manuscript, grant or other scholarly work. Most of us willingly accept the responsibilities that come with being a reviewer but how comfortable are we with the process? Peer review is open to abuse but how should it be policed and can it be improved? A bad peer review process can inadvertently ruin an individual’s career, but are there penalties for policing a reviewer who deliberately sabotages a manuscript or grant? Science has received an increasingly tainted name because of recent high profile cases of alleged scientific misconduct. Once considered the results of work stress or a temporary mental health problem, scientific misconduct is increasingly being reported and proved to be a repeat offence. How should scientific misconduct be handled—is it a criminal offence and subject to national or international law? Similarly plagiarism is an ever-increasing concern whether at the level of the student or a university president. Are the existing laws tough enough? These issues, with appropriate examples, are dealt with in this review.

Keywords: peer review, journal impact factors, conflicts of interest, scientific misconduct, plagiarism

Download Article [PDF] 

Readers of this article also read:

Vincristine sulfate liposomal injection for acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Soosay Raj TA, Smith AM, Moore AS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2013, 8:4361-4369

Published Date: 6 November 2013

Effects of Arthro-7® in relieving symptoms of osteoarthritis with mild to moderate arthralgia [Corrigendum]

Xie Q, Zhou T, Yen L, Shariff M, Nguyen T, Kami K, Gu P, Liang L, Rao J, Shi R

Nutrition and Dietary Supplements 2013, 5:7-8

Published Date: 16 May 2013

Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% lowered intraocular pressure of normal-tension glaucoma with minimal adverse events. [Corrigendum]

Tsumura T, Yoshikawa K, Suzumura H, Kimura T, Sasaki S, Kimura I, Takeda R

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:129-130

Published Date: 16 January 2013

Topical azithromycin or ofloxacin for endophthalmitis

Stewart MW, Stewart ML

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:35-38

Published Date: 31 December 2012

Erratum

Kawaji H, Ishii M, Tamaki Y, Sasaki K, Takagi M

Orthopedic Research and Reviews 2012, 4:103-104

Published Date: 8 November 2012

Corrigendum

Sakai T, Kohzaki K, Watanabe A, Tsuneoka H, Shimadzu M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:1035-1036

Published Date: 5 July 2012