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:

Advances in the development of vaccines for dengue fever

Simmons M, Teneza-Mora N, Putnak R

Vaccine: Development and Therapy 2012, 2:1-14

Published Date: 4 May 2012

An analysis of the Bateson Review of research using nonhuman primates

Greek R, Hansen LA, Menache A

Medicolegal and Bioethics 2011, 1:3-22

Published Date: 6 December 2011

Facial transplantation: a review of ethics, progress, and future targets

Edwards JA, Mathes DW

Transplant Research and Risk Management 2011, 3:113-125

Published Date: 5 September 2011

Evaluation of in-vitro antibiotic susceptibility of different morphological forms of Borrelia burgdorferi

Sapi E, Kaur N, Anyanwu S, Luecke DF, Datar A, Patel S, Rossi M, Stricker RB

Infection and Drug Resistance 2011, 4:97-113

Published Date: 3 May 2011

The western diet and lifestyle and diseases of civilization

Pedro Carrera-Bastos, Maelan Fontes-Villalba, James H O’Keefe, et al

Research Reports in Clinical Cardiology 2011, 2:15-35

Published Date: 9 March 2011

Amino acid-responsive Crohn's disease: a case study

Alvin Stein, Marty Hinz, Thomas Uncini

Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology 2010, 3:171-177

Published Date: 6 December 2010

Alogliptin: a new addition to the class of DPP-4 inhibitors

Radha Andukuri, Andjela Drincic, Marc Rendell

Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy 2009, 2:117-126

Published Date: 21 July 2009

Role of aliskiren in cardio-renal protection and use in hypertensives with multiple risk factors

Eduardo Pimenta, Suzanne Oparil

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2009, 5:453-463

Published Date: 19 May 2009