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

Problems and conflicts in peer review

A Kohn1, C Putterman

  • 1Tel Aviv University Medical School, Ramat Aviv, Israel.

International Journal of Impotence Research
|September 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Towards Multireference Equivalents of the HEAT Thermochemical Protocol.

Journal of computational chemistry·2025
Same author

The reduction behavior of sulfurized polyacrylonitrile (SPAN) in lithium-sulfur batteries using a carbonate electrolyte: a computational study.

Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP·2024
Same author

A generalized hybrid scheme for multireference methods.

The Journal of chemical physics·2021
Same author

Azathioprine for prevention of clinical recurrence in Crohn's disease patients with severe endoscopic recurrence: an IG-IBD randomized double-blind trial.

European review for medical and pharmacological sciences·2020
Same author

Anti-IFNAR treatment does not reverse neuropsychiatric disease in MRL/<i>lpr</i> lupus mice.

Lupus·2019
Same author

A Markov Multi-State model of lupus nephritis urine biomarker panel dynamics in children: Predicting changes in disease activity.

Clinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.)·2018
Same journal

Attachment orientation and sexual excitation and inhibition independently predict sexual desire and sexual arousal, but their interaction does not.

International journal of impotence research·2026
Same journal

Comment on: Application of gelatin sponge (Gelfoam®) as a hemostatic agent in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

International journal of impotence research·2026
Same journal

It Comes at Night: A Nocturnal Emissions Historical Review.

International journal of impotence research·2026
Same journal

Challenging the paradigm: what is vasculogenic erectile dysfunction?

International journal of impotence research·2026
Same journal

Comment on: GLP-1 receptor agonists and male sexual health: translating cardiometabolic benefits into erectile outcomes.

International journal of impotence research·2026
Same journal

Erectile and ejaculatory outcomes after penile fracture repair: a comparative analysis of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures.

International journal of impotence research·2026
See all related articles

Scientific peer review is crucial for publication. This review examines potential conflicts of interest that volunteer scientists may face during the peer review process.

Area of Science:

  • Scientific publishing
  • Scholarly communication
  • Research integrity

Background:

  • Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, ensuring the quality and validity of research.
  • The integrity of the scientific process relies heavily on the voluntary contributions of expert referees.
  • Referees, despite their selfless service, can face situations that compromise their impartiality.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the nature and types of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review.
  • To highlight the importance of identifying and managing these conflicts to maintain research integrity.
  • To provide a comprehensive overview of ethical considerations for scientific referees.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review of existing studies and ethical guidelines on conflicts of interest in peer review.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of common scenarios leading to conflicts of interest for referees.
  • Discussion of the implications of unmanaged conflicts on scientific publishing.

    • Main Results:

    • Conflicts of interest in peer review can arise from financial, personal, or professional relationships.
    • Failure to disclose or manage conflicts can undermine the credibility of published research.
    • Existing guidelines offer frameworks for identifying and mitigating such conflicts.

    Conclusions:

    • Addressing conflicts of interest is essential for upholding the rigor and trustworthiness of scientific peer review.
    • Clearer guidelines and enhanced awareness are needed to support referees in navigating ethical challenges.
    • Maintaining impartiality in peer review is paramount for the advancement of science.