Cargando…

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Misra, Durga Prasanna, Ravindran, Vinod, Agarwal, Vikas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30416407
http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287
_version_ 1783369096822259712
author Misra, Durga Prasanna
Ravindran, Vinod
Agarwal, Vikas
author_facet Misra, Durga Prasanna
Ravindran, Vinod
Agarwal, Vikas
author_sort Misra, Durga Prasanna
collection PubMed
description Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6221861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62218612018-11-12 Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement Misra, Durga Prasanna Ravindran, Vinod Agarwal, Vikas J Korean Med Sci Special Article Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript. The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 2018-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6221861/ /pubmed/30416407 http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287 Text en © 2018 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Special Article
Misra, Durga Prasanna
Ravindran, Vinod
Agarwal, Vikas
Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
title Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
title_full Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
title_fullStr Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
title_full_unstemmed Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
title_short Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement
title_sort integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement
topic Special Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30416407
http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287
work_keys_str_mv AT misradurgaprasanna integrityofauthorshipandpeerreviewpracticeschallengesandopportunitiesforimprovement
AT ravindranvinod integrityofauthorshipandpeerreviewpracticeschallengesandopportunitiesforimprovement
AT agarwalvikas integrityofauthorshipandpeerreviewpracticeschallengesandopportunitiesforimprovement