Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Richard Smith: Peer reviewers—time for mass rebellion? – BMJ Opinion (Richard Smith | February 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on February 11, 2021
Keywords: Journal, Peer review, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On February 1, 2021

The word "PUBLICATIONS" in different coloured letters.

I’ve spent about six hours over the last two days reviewing two scientific papers, and the experience has made me wonder if it is time for peer reviewers to rise up in rebellion—rather as walkers made a mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932. As I write this, I remember one of Britain’s leading scientists saying to me: “I never peer review. Why would I waste my time reviewing crummy research when I can be doing my own research? What’s more, I’m funded to do research and am rewarded for it. Nobody either funds me to review or rewards me for doing it.”

Richard’s post touches on wider issues:

  1. The need to reform the academic publishing industry; and
  2. The need to rethink the distorting impact of publication metrics on academia.

This is of course in addition to tackling the difficult issue of the unpaid contribution peer reviewers make to publications. We have included links to a lot of related items.

Usually, I follow the message of the scientist and decline to peer review, but then I succumbed twice in 24 hours. In one case I was asked to review a paper that might be published alongside something I’ve written, and the other paper was about an issue I’m keen to advance. I was asked to review the papers within seven days and was chased after seven days. I did one after two weeks and another after 10 days, and as well as reading the papers and writing my reviews I had to grapple with the clunky software when submitting my reviews.

Although I took the reviews seriously and spent six hours doing them, I can’t feel that I added much if any value. Both papers were clearly written and well-evidenced. They could have been published immediately, and no harm would have been done. Instead, much time and bureaucracy has come before publication. (I accept that there are papers that would be better not published, but I suggest that the editors know which they are and that they are usually published anyway if the authors persist: you can get anything published if you keep going, as a series of nonsense papers have shown.)

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Related Reading

Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science (Papers: Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten | January 2021)

A Cautionary Tale for Psychology and Higher Education in Asia: Following Western Practices of Incentivising Scholarship May Have Negative Outcomes (Papers: Bruce B. Svare | March 2020)

(South Africa) Researchers decry ‘pay to publish’ system — but don’t want it to stop – Nature (Sarah Wild | December 2020)

Faux peer-reviewed journals: a threat to research integrity – BishopBlog (December 2020)

Disseminating Scientific Results in the Age of Rapid Communication – EOS (Shobha Kondragunta, et al | October 2020)

Fraud by Numbers: Metrics and the New Academic Misconduct – Los Angeles Review of Books (Mario Biagioli | September 2020)

Why Professors Are Writing Crap That Nobody Reads – NewsIn Asia (Editor | July 2020)

Five better ways to assess science – Nature Index (Benjamin Plackett | August 2020)

(Australia) UTS loses application to appeal against reinstatement of academic sacked for not publishing enough research – Sydney Morning Herald (Anna Patty | July 2020)

Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | January 2020)

How Frequently are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited (Papers: Bo-Christer Björk, et al | December 2019)

‘Broken access’ publishing corrodes quality – Nature (Adriano Aguzzi | June 2019)

(Australia) Industrial umpire lashes universities ‘obsessed’ with rankings and reputation – Sydney Morning Herald (Nick Bonyhady & Natassia Chrysanthos | March 2020)

How Academic Science Gave Its Soul to the Publishing Industry – Issues in Science and Technology (Mark Neff | January 2020)

(China) How China’s New Policy May Change Researchers’ Publishing Behavior – Scholarly Kitchen (Dr. Jie Xu | March 2020)

(China) China bans cash rewards for publishing papers – Nature (Smriti Mallapaty | February 2020)

Repairing an Institutional Reputation Tarnished by Fraudulent Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe | September 2019)

Australia ‘There is a problem’: Australia’s top scientist Alan Finkel pushes to eradicate bad science – The Conversation (Alan Finkel | September 2019)

The Rise of Junk Science – The Walrus (Alex Gillis | July 2019)

Research integrity is much more than misconduct – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus | June 2019)

SPEECH: Actions to advance research integrity – Dr Alan Finkel AO (6th World Conference on Research Integrity | June 2019)

To move research from quantity to quality, go beyond good intentions – Nature ( Alan Finkel | February 2019)

(US) Overdue: a US advisory board for research integrity – Nature (C. K. Gunsalus, et al | February 2019)

Science isn’t broken, but we can do better: here’s how – The Conversation (Alan Finkel | April 2018)

Metrics, recognition, and rewards: it’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers – LSE Impact Blog (Rebecca Lawrence | November 2017)

Funding debate over paper quality vs quantity – Nature Index (Dyani Lewis | September 2017)

Greater risk of academic fraud as competition grows: Experts – The Straits Times (Yuen Sin | November 2017)

Predatory journals – A threat to academic credibility – University World News (Stephen Coan | May 2017)

Predatory Publishing as a Rational Response to Poorly Governed Academic Incentives – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crott | February 2017)

Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (Papers: Marc A. Edwards and Siddhartha Roy | 2017)

Does Productivity Diminish Research Quality? – The Scientist (Anna Azvolinsky: September 2016)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in