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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyISSN 2206-2483

What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts? – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | August 2017)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts? – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | August 2017)

Published/Released on August 15, 2017 | Posted by Admin on October 18, 2017 / , , , , , , , , , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


Peer reviewers, like authors, are supposed to declare any potential conflicts of interest. But what happens when they don’t?

While principally speaking to journal editors the points could be seen as essential prompts for would-be peer reviewers to consider.

Take this case: In a court transcript from Feb. 23, 2017, Bryan Hardin testified that he was a peer reviewer on a 2016 paper in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which found that asbestos does not increase the risk of cancer. In the deposition, Hardin—who works at the consulting firm Veritox—also said that he has testified in asbestos litigation on behalf of automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, but said he had not disclosed these relationships to the journal.
.

Last year, the first author of the 2016 review withdrew a paper from another journal (by the same publisher) which concluded asbestos roofing products are safe, following several criticisms — including not disclosing the approving editor’s ties to the asbestos industry. In this latest case, the journal told us it believes the review process for the paper was up to snuff, but two outside experts we consulted said they believed Hardin’s relationships — and failure to disclose them — should give the journal pause.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

 



Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics