COPE Digest: Peer Review Week. September 2016 (Vol. 4, Issue 9)

是的同行评审周,where we celebrate how peer review helps maintain academic quality. Much of this month’s COPE Digest has been chosen to reflect just that, to share with you relevant insights from COPE members and the COPE team, and to give you the opportunity to contribute yourself. Please, dive in.

这个月......您可以阅读并反思最近资助的会议美国研究诚信办公室,where delegates discussed prevention and management of misconduct related retractions under the theme “keeping the pool clean”. COPE’s reaction, and it’s not controversial, is that knowledgeable reviewers are at the heart of the careful processes that create reliable corrections. Our roundup of research and publication ethics news this month also provides reason to pause. This month, from among the headlines, we flag a new discussion about hypercompetition, one of the themes from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Report on theCulture of Scientific Research,we share news about a fake journal publisher being shut-down, and we highlight a story about improving peer review by training peer reviewers... But who should do the training?

This month… You can观看视频来自我们的北美研讨会，现在提供，包括谁在审查同行评审员（Kristen Overstreet，Origin编辑），发现假同行评审（Alison McCook，撤置手表）和操纵的同行评审（伊丽莎白Moylan，Biomed Central和Cope Autom成员）。

This month… You cancontributeto the evolution of the “best practice” that COPE members and others in the research publishing community rely on and refer to, via commenting on COPE’s open discussion document 'Who "owns" peer reviews?', and the COPE guidance document,同行评审员的道德bob官方app准则.

这个月......你可以从我们的四个学习本月案例，每一个都是从我们的真实案例数据库中挑选出来的，以说明编辑和作者面临的不同问题和解决方案：同行评审过程的保密性以及利益冲突，谁“拥有”同行评审，如何减少同行评审过程中的偏见，以及假同行评审员如何操纵同行评审过程。

COPEhas seen many cases related to peer review submitted for discussion over the years. A search of thecope案例数据库，采用“同行评议”分类，揭示了56例同行评议的各个方面。

为了同行评审周2016，我们分享了一些案例，这些案例突出了同行评审的多样性问题，包括：违反保密规定；利益冲突；谁拥有同行评审报告；过程中的潜在偏见和同行评审中的妥协。

案例16-12-拒绝纸张的作者公开姓名并批评同行评审员—raises issues of confidentiality around the peer review process and also conflicts of interest. An author of a rejected paper publicly identified one of the peer reviewers of the paper by name during a media interview after the paper was published by another journal, implying that the paper was rejected because of that person's review. The author also claimed the reviewer did not reveal relevant conflicts of interest. The Forum agreed with the course of action of the editor to resolve the issue and take steps to change the journal processes to avoid a similar situation in future. The Forum also noted that a reviewer being in the same field as the author is not in itself a conflict of interest, but a reason to invite a reviewer. However, it may be helpful to have some clarifying examples in the journal’s guidelines to help reviewers identify conflicts of interest.Read the full discussion and advice from the Forum.

Case 16-13—Author requests permission to publish review commentsraises the issue of who ‘owns’ peer reviews. A paper was reviewed by three reviewers who all recommended rejection. The author appealed the decision but the decision was upheld. The author informed the journal that they intended to make the version of the manuscript publicly available online along with the reviews and a commentary on the issues raised, prior to submission to a journal with open peer review. The author requested the journal’s consent for the review comments to be made public. The Forum discussed the wider issue of who owns the peer reviews. Copyright is with the reviewer unless it is formally transferred to the author. However, if all parties consent (journal, author, reviewers) then the reviews can be made public.Read the full discussion and advice from the Forum.

谁是“拥有的”同行评审也是应对的新讨论文件的主题(see below).

案例16-08——作者要求某些专家不参与编辑过程突出显示如何减少对等审查过程中偏见的问题。提交人请求某些专家不参与审查本文件吗？论坛认为作者有权提出此要求，但编辑不应绑定到排除特定的审阅者。否则，作者潜在处理同行评审过程。提交人应该给出他们的要求的理由。许多期刊允许作者在提交时指定“非首选”个人，但没有保证编辑将排除这些人。Read the full discussion and advice from the Forum

Case 12-16—Compromised peer review (unpublished)—highlights how fake peer reviewers may manipulate the peer review process. A manuscript was flagged as having received reviewers’ reports indicating very high interest. On checking the credentials of the three reviewers, the editor was unable to find the publication record of any of them. All three reviewers were found to have been suggested by the authors, but the reviewers were found not to exist. The Forum noted that the case was brought about by the failure of journal processes and the journal’s peer review system. Good practice is always to check the names, addresses and email contacts of reviewers, and especially those that are recommended by authors.Read the full discussion and advice from the Forum.

另请参见

COPE eLearning: Reviewer misconduct
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
cope案例数据库
案例分类法

来自Cope教育委员会的报告

On July 20–21, 2016, the Colorado State University at Fort Collins hosted a conference on research integrity. “Keeping the Pool Clean: Prevention and Management of Misconduct Related Retractions” was funded by the US Office of Research Integrity. The conference was unique in that the agenda covered scientific misconduct through a multidisciplinary perspective, including perspectives from ethics, biomedicine, bench science, sociology, organizational behaviour, criminology, as well as other disciplines (for more information see theconference website以及会议诉讼.

尽管代表了各种纪律和观点，但讨论中的共同分母是同行评审员在检测科学不当行为方面的重要性。审阅者是否是初始的同行评审员，该审查员是守门员，以将缺陷的科学持本出版，或出版后审查员或举办案例发布后灯光或诚实错误的举报人，这是严格的同行评审过程正在帮助我们“保持游泳池干净”。一些哀叹这次审查所需的时间所需的时间，但事实是审稿人是忙碌的人，细心而周到的评论需要时间完成。

从应对perspective, appropriate action on an accusation of misconduct brought to a journal editor should also take time. Our resources guide editors to verify information with the reviewers or whistleblowers and the authors, and to review the evidence carefully; this also takes time. The editor must gather additional information from everyone concerned, at times contacting research integrity officers at academic or research institutions. But everyone is well served when a careful and thoughtful process is employed that results in the correction of honest error or misconduct. And, it all starts with knowledgeable and thoughtful reviewers.

如果我们想改进同行评议，我们就需要投资于培训

但谁来做呢：出版商还是机构？

Train researchers to peer review

Reforming scientific publishing to value integrity

“由于过度竞争，早期职业研究人员面临的挑战正在损害科学的效率”

竞争损害了好的科学

科学合作的变化

科学家们现在越来越多地问谁来完全产生的结果，以及整个整体的百分比可以分配给每个共同作者
向作者分配精确的信用

Brexit：英国考虑欧盟研究协会的替代方案

British universities need to explore all options to find a politically acceptable solution amid signs that free movement of people between the UK and the EU will end
International movement of researchers without barriers

在掠夺性的期刊上发表你的研究的五个（糟糕的）理由

Publication numbers count most, and more
质疑你对日记的选择

假期刊出版商诈骗百万

中国付费出版学术期刊的连锁店已经关闭，其运营商现在面临处罚
打击假冒中文期刊

美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）指控OMICS在其出版物的性质上欺骗学者和研究人员，并隐瞒高额的出版费用

FTC的投诉指控被告，OMICS Group Inc，Imedpub LLC，会议系列LLC和Srinubabu Gedela，具有多重违反FTC法案禁止欺骗行为或做法的行为
FTC charges deceptive publisher

许多临床试验结果从未发表过。这就是为什么这不好

信息丢失，非循证治疗决定，不必要的重复试验
推动所有研究注册

Ethics in medicine

研究不当行为：重新思考的时间？
增加研究不当行为

另一个小丑报告导致Macchiarini丑闻中的更多杰出头

Results of other investigations to follow
聘用外科医生调查报告结果

欧盟委员会要求从2017年1月1日起公开数据

All Horizon 2020 funded proposals will need to make all of the data and digital research outputs they generate openly available, raising issue of participant consent
EC funded research openly available from 2017

—谁是“拥有”同行评审？

COPE发表了一份关于‘Who "owns" peer reviews?'.This guidance has been drafted following aCOPE论坛（2015年9月9日）和小组讨论COPE North American Seminar（2016年8月）。A播客with Pete Binfield, cofounder with Jason Hoyt ofPeerJ和伊丽莎白Moylan，生物医学中心and应对理事会成员突出的一些问题。

While there is increasing acceptance of the need to give recognition to the work peer reviewers do there are a number of issues at stake for all parties involved - authors, reviewers, editors, journals and other stakeholders.

这些文件的目的是促进关于这个问题的讨论，以帮助为辩论提供信息，并在需要时提供指导。我们鼓励期刊编辑、评论员、研究人员、机构、资助者和第三方服务机构发表评论（无论他们是否是COPE成员）。请将所有评论发送至Natalie Ridgeway，COPE执行官通过10月31日.

—同行评审员的道德bob官方app准则

虽然同行评议是本周的热门话题，但我们借此机会用您的反馈更新我们针对同行评议者的道德准则。上一次更新是在2013年，看看我们的bob官方app同行评审员的道德bob官方app准则并帮助我们将指导方针与当前的景观带入。bob官方app

The COPE guidelines give peer reviewers the basic principles and standards required. They can be applied to all disciplines. We encourage journal editors, reviewers, researchers, institutions, funders, and third party services to comment (whether or not they are COPE members). Please将您的反馈发送给我们通过10月31日.

近百名代表出席了会议COPE 2016北美研讨会，8月10日星期三，费城市希尔顿大道，费城。这是COPE's seventh North American seminar今年的研讨会,主题是“伦理peer review". The meeting was held in collaboration with伊斯特(International Society of Managing and Technical Editors).

早上会议包括三个全体陈述。艾莉森麦科科克州伸缩表，被问到“你能发现一个假的吗？”并讨论了假同行评议的趋势。接下来是克里斯汀·奥弗斯特里特，他是Origin Editorial,presented her talk on "Who's reviewing the reviewers". This was followed by a talk on "Peer review manipulation". Elizabeth Moylan from生物医学中心讨论了我们面临的新挑战和解决方案。每个演示文稿的副本都可以downloaded from here.

下午首先是关于“谁拥有同行评议”的小组讨论。小组成员包括来自American Chemical Society Publications,塔拉霍克，从美国土木工程师学会(and a COPE Council member), and Pete Binfield, co-founder with Jason Hoyt, ofPeerJ.The discussion around peer review continued in workshop discussions of particular cases and provided an opportunity to share stories and insights.

The day ended with a reception hosted jointly by COPE and ISMTE.

谁在审查评论员克里斯汀·奥弗斯特里特，Origin编辑有限责任公司

你能认出赝品吗？伪造同行评语的趋势-艾莉森·麦考克，伸缩表

Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions - Elizabeth Moylan,生物医学中心