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:

EGLN2 and RNF150 genetic variants are associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk in the Chinese population

Ding YP, Niu H, Yang H, Sun P, Chen Y, Duan ML, Xu DC, Xu JX, Jin TB

International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2015, 10:145-151

Published Date: 13 January 2015

BP-C1 in the treatment of patients with stage IV breast cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study and an additional open-label treatment phase

Larsen S, Butthongkomvong K, Manikhas A, Trishkina E, Poddubuskaya E, Matrosova M, Srimuninnimit V, Lindkær-Jensen S

Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy 2014, 6:179-189

Published Date: 27 November 2014

Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in patients with atrial septal aneurysm

Demir M, Demir C

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2013, 9:365-368

Published Date: 19 July 2013

Mechanism-based model characterizing bidirectional interaction between PEGylated liposomal CKD-602 (S-CKD602) and monocytes in cancer patients

Wu H, Ramanathan RK, Zamboni BA, Strychor S, Ramalingam S, Edwards RP, Friedland DM, Stoller RG, Belani CP, Maruca LJ, Bang YJ, Zamboni WC

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5555-5564

Published Date: 19 October 2012

Facet-sparing lumbar decompression with a minimally invasive flexible MicroBlade Shaver® versus traditional decompression: quantitative radiographic assessment

Lauryssen C, Berven S, Mimran R, Summa C, Sheinberg M, Miller LE, Block JE

Clinical Interventions in Aging 2012, 7:257-266

Published Date: 20 July 2012

Hematocrit and mean arterial blood pressure in pre- and postmenopause women

Beatriz Y Salazar Vázquez, Miguel A Salazar Vázquez, Marcos Intaglietta, Ulf de Faire, et al.

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2009, 5:483-488

Published Date: 25 May 2009