Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication

Bornmann, Lutz; Nast, Irina; Daniel, Hans-Dieter

doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2

Publication type:	Article in scientific journal
Type of review:	Peer review (publication)
Title:	Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication
Authors:	Bornmann, Lutz Nast, Irina Daniel, Hans-Dieter
DOI:	10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2
Published in:	Scientometrics
Volume(Issue):	77
Issue:	3
Page(s):	415
Pages to:	432
Issue Date:	2008
Publisher / Ed. Institution:	Springer
ISSN:	0138-9130 1588-2861
Language:	English
Subjects:	Main Area; Peer Review Process; Ranking List; Research Misconduct
Subject (DDC):	000: Generalities and science
Abstract:	The case of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean stem-cell researcher, is arguably the highest profile case in the history of research misconduct. The discovery of Dr. Hwang’s fraud led to fierce criticism of the peer review process (at Science). To find answers to the question of why the journal peer review system did not detect scientific misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data) not only in the Hwang case but also in many other cases, an overview is needed of the criteria that editors and referees normally consider when reviewing a manuscript. Do they at all look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing a manuscript? We conducted a quantitative content analysis of 46 research studies that examined editors’ and referees’ criteria for the assessment of manuscripts and their grounds for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The total of 572 criteria and reasons from the 46 studies could be assigned to nine main areas: (1) ‘relevance of contribution,’ (2) ‘writing / presentation,’ (3) ‘design / conception,’ (4) ‘method / statistics,’ (5) ‘discussion of results,’ (6) ‘reference to the literature and documentation,’ (7) ‘theory,’ (8) ‘author’s reputation / institutional affiliation,’ and (9) ‘ethics.’ None of the criteria or reasons that were assigned to the nine main areas refers to or is related to possible falsification or fabrication of data. In a second step, the study examined what main areas take on high and low significance for editors and referees in manuscript assessment. The main areas that are clearly related to the quality of the research underlying a manuscript emerged in the analysis frequently as important: ‘theory,’ ‘design / conception’ and ‘discussion of results.’
URI:	https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/14603
Fulltext version:	Published version
License (according to publishing contract):	Licence according to publishing contract
Departement:	School of Health Sciences
Organisational Unit:	Institute of Physiotherapy (IPT)
Appears in collections:	Publikationen Gesundheit

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

Show full item record

Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2

Bornmann, L., Nast, I. and Daniel, H.-D. (2008) ‘Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication’, Scientometrics, 77(3), pp. 415–432. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.

L. Bornmann, I. Nast, and H.-D. Daniel, “Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication,” Scientometrics, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 415–432, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.

BORNMANN, Lutz, Irina NAST und Hans-Dieter DANIEL, 2008. Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics. 2008. Bd. 77, Nr. 3, S. 415–432. DOI 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2

Bornmann, Lutz, Irina Nast, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2008. “Do Editors and Referees Look for Signs of Scientific Misconduct When Reviewing Manuscripts? : A Quantitative Content Analysis of Studies That Examined Review Criteria and Reasons for Accepting and Rejecting Manuscripts for Publication.” Scientometrics 77 (3): 415–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.

Bornmann, Lutz, et al. “Do Editors and Referees Look for Signs of Scientific Misconduct When Reviewing Manuscripts? : A Quantitative Content Analysis of Studies That Examined Review Criteria and Reasons for Accepting and Rejecting Manuscripts for Publication.” Scientometrics, vol. 77, no. 3, 2008, pp. 415–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.