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:

Antihypertensive therapy: nocturnal dippers and nondippers. Do we treat them differently?

Mahabala C, Kamath P, Bhaskaran U, Pai ND, Pai AU

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2013, 9:125-133

Published Date: 24 March 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

Blood–brain barrier: a real obstacle for therapeutics

Shiekh FA

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4065-4067

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Corrigendum

De Caterina AR, Harper AR, Cuculi F

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2012, 8:443-445

Published Date: 19 July 2012

Corrigendum

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

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:1035-1036

Published Date: 5 July 2012

Corrigendum

Chen ZQ, Liu Y, Zhao JH, Wang L, Feng NP

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:1709-1710

Published Date: 30 March 2012

Corrigendum: Softec HD hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens: biocompatibility and precision

Espandar L, Sikder S, Moshirfar M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2011, 5:159-160

Published Date: 6 February 2011