Reviewers Have a Responsibility to Promote Ethical Peer Review by
As a reviewer, you are expected to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. Audio like an intimidating amount of responsibleness? We're hither to help.
In this guide, we'll go over the basics of identifying and declaring competing interests. This is one of the virtually important means to promote ethical peer review.
Related guide
Ethics for Peer Reviewers
What Is a Competing Interest?
What are competing interests, and why should you care about them?
Competing interests can be many things. Here's the official definition that PLOS uses:
A competing involvement is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably exist perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to PLOS.
Competing interests can be fiscal or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an arrangement or another person.
Competing interests matter because they can introduce perceived or actual bias in the submission or peer review process. Theadventof bias during the evaluation tin can compromise a study down the line – fifty-fifty if the study is perfectly valid.
Confused most competing interests? You're not solitary. Beneath we'll walk you through how to cheque for competing interests that could reasonably be perceived as interfering with your peer review of the manuscript.
Checking for competing interests: How, when, and where
When you are invited to review a manuscript, check for any competing interests that may be between you and the authors.
Hither are some questions to ask yourself: If you lot reply aye to whatsoever of these questions yous should declare them as a competing interest to the journal before y'all accept the invitation to review.
Financial conflicts of interest:
Could you profit or be negatively impacted financially by the submitted research?
Personal conflicts of interest:
Practice yous take a personal human relationship with the authors?
Are you and the authors rivals or competitors?
Professional conflicts of involvement:
Have y'all recently worked at the aforementioned establishment or organisation as the authors?
Take you or are you currently collaborating with the authors?
Take you published with the authors during the last 5 years?
Exercise yous or have yous held grants with the authors?
If you lot agree to review a manuscript, check for competing interests again once yous have access to all of the submission files.
Where in the submission should you wait for competing interests? Here are some possible things to cheque:
- Author list: Exercise you know any of the authors?
- Funding information: Exercise you now, or have y'all recently held grants with any of the authors?
- Acknowledgments: Are you thanked in the acknowledgments?
Declaring competing interests
If one of these situations applies to you, or if you think you have a competing interest that's not listed here, get in touch with the journal correct away. Depending on the situation, the journal editors may enquire you lot to review anyway, or make up one's mind to find a different reviewer.
If the journal editors decide to keep you equally a reviewer on the manuscript, they will probably ask you lot to declare the competing interest in your reviewer comments. This will brand your position transparent.
Again, remember that competing interests are not necessarily bad. It's okay to have them. The of import affair is that they are alleged. Even if you are confident that your review is unbiased, declaring a potential competing interest ensures the editor understands the relationships in play, and can account for them when evaluating reviewer feedback to achieve a decision.
Example Studies
Want to read virtually real-life scenarios involving competing interests for reviewers? These case studies from the Committee on Publication Ideals (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) provide some interesting (and complicated) examples of tricky situations. We hope you don't observe yourself in a similar situation, merely if y'all do, remember to get in touch on with the journal for advice.
Competing interests case report #1 | Reviewer recommends rejection, then submits a manuscript to the same journal on the same topic.
Competing interests case study #2| Reviewer suggests rejecting a manuscript and turns out to exist affiliated with a competing institution, which was not disclosed during the review process.
Competing interests example study #3 | Reviewer recommends rejection and turns out to take a patent on a method challenged by the submitted enquiry, which was not disclosed during the review process.
Source: https://plos.org/resource/competing-interests-for-reviewers/
0 Response to "Reviewers Have a Responsibility to Promote Ethical Peer Review by"
Postar um comentário