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

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:

Reduced reward-related probability learning in schizophrenia patients

Yılmaz A, Simsek F, Gonul AS

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2012, 8:27-34

Published Date: 5 January 2012

Argatroban in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Luciano Babuin, Vittorio Pengo

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2010, 6:813-819

Published Date: 1 September 2010

Clinical profile of hypertension at a University Teaching Hospital in Nigeria

Arthur C Onwuchekwa, Sunday Chinenye

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2010, 6:511-516

Published Date: 1 July 2010

Isolated spontaneous dissection of the celiac trunk in a patient with bicuspid aortic valve

Abdel-Rauf Zeina, Alicia Nachtigal, Anton Troitsa, et al

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2010, 6:383-386

Published Date: 19 May 2010

Relative safety profiles of high dose statin regimens

Carlos Escobar, Rocio Echarri, Vivencio Barrios

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2008, 4:525-533

Published Date: 30 June 2008

Treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension

Nika Skoro-Sajer, Irene Lang, Robert Naeije

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2008, 4:507-513

Published Date: 30 June 2008

Adherence treatment factors in hypertensive African American women

Marie N Fongwa, Lorraines S Evangelista, Ron D Hays, David S Martins, David Elashoff, et al

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2008, 4:157-166

Published Date: 6 March 2008

ISVH Society September Newsletter

 

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2007, 3:0-0

Published Date: 21 November 2007

Ximelagatran: direct thrombin inhibitor

Shir-Jing Ho, Tim A Brighton

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2006, 2:49-58

Published Date: 25 January 2006

Screening for popliteal aneurysms should not be a routine part of a community-based aneurysm screening program

Martin Claridge, Simon Hobbs, Clive Quick, Donald Adam, Andrew Bradbury, Teun Wilmink

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2006, 2:189-191

Published Date: 25 January 2006