ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPeer review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Peer Review (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | August 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 30, 2019

A guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research


1. Introduction 1

2. Peer review 1

3. Responsibilities of institutions 2
3.1 Support peer review 2
3.2 Provide training for researchers 2

4. Responsibilities of researchers 2
4.1 Participate in peer review 2
4.2 Conduct peer review responsibly 2
…v4.2.1 Respect confidentiality 3
..4.2.2 Disclose interests and manage conflicts of interest 3
4.3 Avoid interference in the peer review process 3
4.4 Mentor trainees in peer review 4
4.5 Engage in relevant training
4 5. Breaches of the Code 4

Additional Resources 4

Access the good practice guide

Peer Review Week – the Podcast and the Videos! – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 28, 2019

September 16-20th 2019 was Peer Review week.  The lovely folk at Scholarly Kitchen have posted a short video and community resources.  We have included links to a further 25 useful items.

We’re delighted to end this year’s Peer Review Week celebrations by sharing some great community resources that you can use all year round! The Peer Review Week channel on YouTube features short videos by researchers, editors, publishers, and others on the theme of quality in peer review, and there’s also a 60 second podcast on Peer Review Week by Sense about Science Director, Tracey Brown, OBE. Until next year … enjoy!

Access  the video and resources

How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer – Scholarly Kitchen (Jasmine Wallace | September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 25, 2019

In my experience, the streamlined process of peer review is complicated when reviewers with good intentions do bad things. A reviewer who does bad things displays behaviors that slow down or lessen the effectiveness of peer review. A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the process. The good thing about a reviewer who does bad things is that they can change. There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers.

Mind the Time

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seriously, good reviewers do not keep a fellow peer waiting longer than needed to receive their review. Keep in mind that your review is holding their work from progressing. Some people have been working for years to get their research “peer review” ready. Their blood, sweat, and tears have gone into the work you’ve been asked to evaluate.

When you get the initial invitation to review, make note of the deadline. Pull out your calendar and check to see if you can realistically return a fair and sound assessment of the work in the allotted time. If the deadline is not reasonable, don’t be afraid to ask for an extension.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review (Papers: Samantha Cukier, et al | Preprint September 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on September 23, 2019


We believe there is a large number of checklists to help authors detect predatory journals. It is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content.

Perform a systematic review to identify checklists to detect potential predatory journals and to examine their content and measurement properties.

Data Sources:
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018), university library websites (January 2019), YouTube (January 2019).

Study Selection:
Original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese, with instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items, not including lists or guidance on recognizing “legitimate” or “trustworthy” journals.

Data Extraction:
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed checklist quality and a third reviewer resolved conflicts.

Data Synthesis:
Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), had an average of 11 items, which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%) or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four (of six) thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based.

Limited languages and years of publication, searching other media.

There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of evidence-based tools serving authors from all disciplines.

Cukier, S., Helal, L., Rice, D.B., Pupkaite, J., Ahmadzai, N., Wilson, M., Skidmore, B., Lalu, M., Moher, D. (Preprint 2019) Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review. medRxiv. 19005728; doi: