Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

'Peer review' culture.

M Atkinson1

  • 1malcolma@cyberelectric.net.au

Science and Engineering Ethics
|May 15, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

The peer review problem, marked by frequent unsatisfactory decisions, stems from significant system weaknesses. Addressing these requires careful management and separation of review and referee roles to ensure quality scientific publishing.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Measurement of the Sensitivity of Two-Particle Correlations in pp Collisions to the Presence of Hard Scatterings.

Physical review letters·2023
Same author

Observation of the γγ→ττ Process in Pb+Pb Collisions and Constraints on the τ-Lepton Anomalous Magnetic Moment with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2023
Same author

Observation of an Excess of Dicharmonium Events in the Four-Muon Final State with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2023
Same author

Strong Constraints on Jet Quenching in Centrality-Dependent p+Pb Collisions at 5.02 TeV from ATLAS.

Physical review letters·2023
Same author

Search for Heavy Neutral Leptons in Decays of W Bosons Using a Dilepton Displaced Vertex in sqrt[s]=13  TeV pp Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2023
Same author

Test of CP Invariance in Higgs Boson Vector-Boson-Fusion Production Using the H→γγ Channel with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2023
Same journal

Not Another Grocery List: Proposals for an Effective AI Ethics Implementation.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

From Biopiracy to Sustainable Knowledge Governance: Epistemic Justice and the Reconstruction of Resource Sovereignty in the Global South.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Deliberative Lab Communication and the Practice of Ethical Science.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Discursive Ethics as a Normative Foundation for Integrating Ethics into AI Clinical Decision Support Systems.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Tragedies of Technology: An Exploration of Such Narratives.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Scholarly Publishing
  • Scientific Communication
  • Research Integrity

Background:

  • The 'peer review problem' is a recognized issue characterized by a high incidence of unsatisfactory review decisions in academic publishing.
  • Existing literature acknowledges the prevalence and impact of flawed peer review processes on scientific dissemination.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify and examine the contributing factors to the 'peer review problem'.
  • To analyze specific instances of unreasonable rejection within the peer review system.
  • To propose necessary improvements for the peer review process.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of factors contributing to unsatisfactory peer review decisions.
  • Examination of case studies involving unreasonable rejections.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Literature review on existing peer review challenges and proposed solutions.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant weaknesses within the current peer review system are identified and confirmed.
    • These weaknesses are well-documented but often not adequately addressed through enforcement of counter-measures.
    • Specific examples highlight the occurrence of unreasonable rejections due to flawed review processes.

    Conclusions:

    • The peer review system possesses significant, recognizable weaknesses that impact the quality of scholarly publishing.
    • Effective management is crucial to mitigate the effects of biased or erroneous review comments.
    • A clear separation between review and referee functions is recommended to enhance the integrity of the peer review process.