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 15 March 2007 Volume 2007:3(1) Pages 39—53

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:

Validity and clinical utilization of the Chinese version of the Gotland Male Depression Scale at a men’s health polyclinic

Chu CL, Chen Y, Jiang KH, Chen JL, Lee CP, Chau YL, Chen CY

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2014, 10:1707-1714

Published Date: 10 September 2014

The diagnosis and treatment of dyskeratosis congenita: a review

Fernández García MS, Teruya-Feldstein J

Journal of Blood Medicine 2014, 5:157-167

Published Date: 21 August 2014

Towards Horizon 2020: challenges and advances for clinical mental health research – outcome of an expert survey

van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, van Os J, Knappe S, Schumann G, Vieta E, Wittchen HU, Lewis SW, Elfeddali I, Wahlbeck K, Linszen D, Obradors-Tarragó C, Haro JM

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2014, 10:1057-1068

Published Date: 27 June 2014

Transdermal testosterone replacement therapy in men

Ullah MI, Riche DM, Koch CA

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014, 8:101-112

Published Date: 9 January 2014

Particle size reduction to the nanometer range: a promising approach to improve buccal absorption of poorly water-soluble drugs

Rao S, Song Y, Peddie F, Evans AM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2011, 6:1245-1251

Published Date: 20 June 2011

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010

Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: Evidence-based practice

Andrew J Schoenfeld, Bradley K Weiner

International Journal of General Medicine 2010, 3:209-214

Published Date: 9 July 2010