As a crucial component of academic publishing, peer review relies on trust, expertise, and anonymity. However, this anonymity can sometimes be exploited, leading to unethical practices like idea theft and content plagiarism. To address this issue, mandating reviewers' names and ORCIDs on published manuscripts could be a game-changer.
Here's why:
Accountability: By revealing reviewers' identities, they become accountable for their actions and comments. This transparency would deter potential misconduct, as reviewers would be less likely to engage in unethical behavior.
Credit where due: Recognizing reviewers' contributions to the publication process acknowledges their expertise and effort. This could encourage more researchers to participate in peer review.
Integrity: Adding reviewers' names and ORCIDs ensures that ideas and content are not stolen or plagiarized. This safeguard would protect authors' intellectual property and maintain the integrity of the scientific record.
Example:
Suppose Dr. Dakurah reviews a manuscript on a novel cancer treatment. If their name and ORCID are attached to the published paper, they are less likely to use the ideas or data without proper citation or collaboration. This transparency ensures that the original authors receive credit for their work.
By implementing this simple yet effective measure, journals can promote a culture of responsibility, fairness, and trust in the peer-review process. It's time to shed light on the crucial contributions of reviewers and ensure the integrity of scientific publishing. What do you think about this my idea?
As an author and reviewer, I believe it's time to break with tradition and give credit where credit is due. Let's make reviewers visible! By acknowledging their valuable contributions in the published paper, we can ensure transparency and accountability in the peer-review process. This simple yet powerful step will deter reviewers from reproducing manuscripts without proper citation, promoting ethical research practices.
Moreover, recognizing reviewers fosters a sense of community and encourages collaboration among researchers. Imagine the potential for innovative projects and breakthroughs when experts connect and build upon each other's work! By shining a light on the unsung heroes of academic publishing, we can create a more inclusive, collaborative, and progressive research landscape. Let's make reviewer recognition a standard practice and celebrate the power of teamwork in advancing knowledge!
Please provide compelling evidence of abuse. "Transparency" for its own sake is unwarranted.
As author, editor and reviewer, I anticipate eliminating anonymity will reduce the number of scientists and technologist willing to critically review the work of their colleagues as well as the frankness of comments from those willing to review.
There is no credit to be obtained by being a published reviewer. No one cares except perhaps disappointed authors who will have a target for their disappointment.
A Case Study on Transforming NGO Publications into Peer-Reviewed Articles: Ethical Considerations in the Peer-Review Process
" I raise serious ethical concerns about the integrity of the peer-review process surrounding a recent virtual special issue (VSI), which features updated and shortened versions of chapters from a book published almost simultaneously. Both the book and the VSI are largely authored, peer-reviewed, and edited by individuals aƯiliated with an NGO. A central issue addressed throughout the paper is the rationale for transforming book chapters into articles for a peer-reviewed journal. The motivation, perhaps, can be found in the editors’ own words, expressing their intent to use this “peer-reviewed and published” evidence to influence “policy-makers and practitioners across the world.” It is evident that articles published in peer-reviewed journals carry significantly more weight in shaping public policy than a book released by an NGO. This does not imply that the book or the special issue contain research of poor quality; however, it raises important questions about the transparency and rigor of the peer-review process."
https://osf.io/nf957
Here's an concern for which a colleague and I seek input.
In multiple discussions on Researchgate, one person offered a well - written comment with multiple published citations as support. On closer examination, the citations are fictional, apparent AI hallucinations, and AI check sites judged the text 100% AI generated.
If the same iwere observed for a journal article (the 1st listed under the author's name on Google Scholar) - nonexistent cites and AI generated.
What is the responsibility of the reader?
Phil Geis,
please, bring details about this person, GS account, answer, or RG profile in order to get precise answer from your peers.
Best regards.
Ljubomir
thanks - I vetted with another person on RG who came to the same conclusion.
Here is the discussion involved. I am not happy to question the person's ethics beyond the casual RG post - so I'd appreciate your review and thinking. Am i off base.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_consequences_of_DEI_opposition_on_the_mental_health_and_well-being_of_marginalized_students/1
Phil Geis , this man has 25 research in August 2025!!! He does definitely use AI and has fake citations. It is not only about his AI generated answer that You refer to, I have visited the discussion which You recommended.
He does also self-citation, for example:
Article: Preprint Assessing the Diversity of the United States in Relation to ...
It is identified that there are no references in this preprint, but in text You do have references. The very first one is:
Article Educational Diversity in the United States: Analyzing the Im...
Strange AI author! :) All of his 70 research are published this year!!! He also has strange co-authors like Joseph Ozigis , J O Akomodi, ... while his name is Joseph Ozigis Akomodi !!!
It is possible for some of his articles, but very few, that were coauthored with numerous authors, that predatory publisher is in question and/or AI and paper milling.
That was my first observation Phil Geis (at glance). Best regards.
Phil Geis ,
You should report to ResearchGate this profile and do well document the issues. That is what some of my peers and myself do in such cases. The response from ResearchGate is not fast, but after checks , such profiles are banned.
Dear Ljubomir Jacić and Phil Geis The 'problem' is that RG is rarely acting against obvious imposters, like discussed for example here https://www.researchgate.net/post/ResearchGate_fails_to_act_on_a_serious_and_obvious_example_of_scientific_misconduct_fraud_scam_case_report_1 and https://www.researchgate.net/post/ResearchGate_fails_to_act_on_a_serious_and_obvious_example_of_scientific_misconduct_fraud_scam_case_report_2
The person discussed here has an obvious suspicious production and most likely use AI tools but (unfortunately) RG does not forbid 'publishing' in predatory journals (and producing other 'research' products like short presentations).
I was unable (so far) to detect plagiarism (though figures are included in 'papers' without proper attribution). Only clear plagiarism or uploaded papers that are not authored by the person are reasons to remove these contributions and only multiple examples of fraud are reasons for RG (eventually) to act and remove profiles.
Best regards.
Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature’s research papers
From today, all new submissions to Nature that are published will be accompanied by referees’ reports and author responses — to illuminate the process of producing rigorous science...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01880-9
You should address ResearchGate for this problem dear Phil Geis (report the issue).
- Badges
- Science topic