Advertisement

Peer reviewing and Editor's decision should never be a personal conflicting matter

Published:January 24, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2017.01.018
      I came through the latest paper on the journal by Napolitani et al., about peer reviewing of scientific reports in the academic community of experts [
      • Napolitani F.
      • Petrini C.
      • Garattini S.
      Ethics of reviewing scientific publications.
      ]. I joined the Editorial Board as a Member of some scientific journals, e.g. Nutrition (Elsevier), and the paper by Napolitani strongly attracted my interest. In particular, my attention was caught by a citation in the paper reference list, where the Editor in Chief of British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Prof. Adam Cohen, took a press charge against an editorial case where the process of peer reviewing was defiled by organized crime [
      • Cohen A.
      • Pattanaik S.
      • Kumar P.
      • Bies R.R.
      • de Boer A.
      • Ferro A.
      • et al.
      Organised crime against the academic peer review system.
      ]. Anyway, crime would be a much largest concept in this context.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Internal Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Napolitani F.
        • Petrini C.
        • Garattini S.
        Ethics of reviewing scientific publications.
        Eur J InternMed. 2016 Dec 27; (pii: S0953-6205(16)30440-X)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.011
        • Cohen A.
        • Pattanaik S.
        • Kumar P.
        • Bies R.R.
        • de Boer A.
        • Ferro A.
        • et al.
        Organised crime against the academic peer review system.
        Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Jun; 81: 1012-1017
        • Regehr G.
        • Bordage G.
        To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
        Med Educ. 2006 Sep; 40: 832-839
        • Murdoch B.
        • Carr S.
        • Caulfield T.
        Selling falsehoods? A cross-sectional study of Canadian naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic and acupuncture clinic website claims relating to allergy and asthma.
        BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 16; 6e014028
        • Caulfield T.
        • Rachul C.
        Supported by science?: what Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public.
        Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2011 Sep 15; 7: 14

      Linked Article

      • Ethics of reviewing scientific publications
        European Journal of Internal MedicineVol. 40
        • Preview
          The approval or rejection of scientific publications can have important consequences for scientific knowledge, so considerable responsibility lies on those who have to assess or review them. Today it seems that the peer review process, far from being considered an outdated system to be abandoned, is experiencing a new upturn.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF