Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?
As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current cr...
| Published in: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 275 - 286 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Feb2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=127817608&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 127817608 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2018 vid: 24 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 127817608 10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6 ppf: 275 ppct: 11 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 362KB tig: atl: Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? aug: au: Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. Al-Khatib, Aceil affil: P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho post office, Ikenobe 3011-2, 761-0799, Kagawa-ken, Japan Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 3030, 22110, Irbid, Jordan su: Professional peer review Periodical editors Professional ethics Authors Publishing sug: subj: Professional peer review Periodical editors Professional ethics Authors Publishing keyword: Compromised trust Flexible ethics Lax selection Open versus traditional peer review Rules ab: As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors’ suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors’ message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process—especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory—may constitute a violation of authors’ rights. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|