(1) Several journals online uploading system asks authors to suggest potential reviewers to review the manuscript. The author suggests familiar names in his field of research. But, he does not enter the original email of the expert. He himself creates an email id and uploads his manuscript. If editor fails to verify the email, and sends review to the fake Id, author himself will upload the review report.
(2) Assume an Editor wants to make a biased decision (either favorable acceptance or ruthless rejection irrespective of the manuscript quality) on a particular manuscript. He himself registers as a reviewer and uploads a biased report.
(3) The editor sends the manuscript of the author to another person within the same author group without checking any research group or scopus profiles. If the latter person agrees to review and sends favorable report in spite of the poor quality of the manuscript, it can be labelled as a fraudulent practice.
(4) The reviewer reveals his identity to the author who may be his friend or a former colleague and decides to upload a favorable review report.
(5) An editor receives 'n' number of review reports for a manuscript. However, he chooses to ignore some reports and picks up reports which align with his premeditated decision.
(6) The author is an international expert and well known person to many editorial board members. He uploads a manuscript to a journal and the editor reveals the receipt of a rejection report to the author prior to official decision. The author influences the editor to send the manuscript for additional review to known persons to obtain favorable review. The former reviewer receives an email from the editor that his review is no longer required and the review item is removed from his online journal account.
All of them (Editor, reviewer and author) may play a role in this review fraud. If a journal practices to send the manuscript to at least 3 reviewers, the above issues can be overcome. Unfortunately, only leading journals has a well developed database. Numerous journals do not find appropriate reviewers and struggles with reviewer selection which may invoke a review fraud. Journals should come forward to publish the review reports also along the articles which may improve the quality and reduce review fraud.
Good question. I was not aware of it. See
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/
(1) Several journals online uploading system asks authors to suggest potential reviewers to review the manuscript. The author suggests familiar names in his field of research. But, he does not enter the original email of the expert. He himself creates an email id and uploads his manuscript. If editor fails to verify the email, and sends review to the fake Id, author himself will upload the review report.
(2) Assume an Editor wants to make a biased decision (either favorable acceptance or ruthless rejection irrespective of the manuscript quality) on a particular manuscript. He himself registers as a reviewer and uploads a biased report.
(3) The editor sends the manuscript of the author to another person within the same author group without checking any research group or scopus profiles. If the latter person agrees to review and sends favorable report in spite of the poor quality of the manuscript, it can be labelled as a fraudulent practice.
(4) The reviewer reveals his identity to the author who may be his friend or a former colleague and decides to upload a favorable review report.
(5) An editor receives 'n' number of review reports for a manuscript. However, he chooses to ignore some reports and picks up reports which align with his premeditated decision.
(6) The author is an international expert and well known person to many editorial board members. He uploads a manuscript to a journal and the editor reveals the receipt of a rejection report to the author prior to official decision. The author influences the editor to send the manuscript for additional review to known persons to obtain favorable review. The former reviewer receives an email from the editor that his review is no longer required and the review item is removed from his online journal account.
All of them (Editor, reviewer and author) may play a role in this review fraud. If a journal practices to send the manuscript to at least 3 reviewers, the above issues can be overcome. Unfortunately, only leading journals has a well developed database. Numerous journals do not find appropriate reviewers and struggles with reviewer selection which may invoke a review fraud. Journals should come forward to publish the review reports also along the articles which may improve the quality and reduce review fraud.
Retraction Watch has a huge database that documents cases of peer review fraud and similar problems in academic publishing. Sometimes, peer review malpractices occur because of ignorance. For example:
1. In a single-blind peer review system, the handling editor might send your manuscript to your friend/colleague from a different institute or even country. If your colleague fails to cite conflict of interest, peer review fraud occurs.
2. The peer reviewer has commercial interest in the results of the study. For example, if I have a company or consult for a company that develop products supported the paper, I might look at the manuscript favoribly.
The problem of peer review fraud is greater than if assumed. And it takes researchers to make an effort to learn the philosophy of science and peer review. I recommend Publons Academy, ACS Reviewer Lab and Elsevier Researcher Academy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals