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:

Toxoplasmosis complicating lung cancer: a case report

Lu NH, Liu CH, Wang JY, Ding Y, Ai Q

International Medical Case Reports Journal 2015, 8:37-40

Published Date: 22 January 2015

The efficacy and mechanism of apoptosis induction by hypericin-mediated sonodynamic therapy in THP-1 macrophages

Li XS, Gao L, Zheng LB, Kou JY, Zhu X, Jiang YQ, Zhong ZY, Dan JH, Xu HB, Yang Y, Li H, Shi S, Cao WW, Zhao YJ, Tian Y, Yang LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2015, 10:821-838

Published Date: 22 January 2015

A retrospective analysis focusing on a group of patients with dual diagnosis treated by both mental health and substance use services

Di Lorenzo R, Galliani A, Guicciardi A, Landi G, Ferri P

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2014, 10:1479-1488

Published Date: 11 August 2014

The emerging and diverse roles of sirtuins in cancer: a clinical perspective

Yuan H, Su L, Chen WY

OncoTargets and Therapy 2013, 6:1399-1416

Published Date: 8 October 2013

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

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

Increased tissue factor, MMP-8, and D-dimer expression in diabetic patients with unstable advanced carotid atherosclerosis

Jerzy Krupinski, Marta M Turu, M Angels Font, Nesser Ahmed, Matthew Sullivan, Ana Luque, Francisco Rubio, Lina Badimon, Mark Slevin

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2007, 3:405-412

Published Date: 4 October 2007

Review of sitagliptin phosphate: a novel treatment for type 2 diabetes

Baptist Gallwitz

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2007, 3:203-210

Published Date: 14 May 2007