1 / 12

Publication

Publication. Michael Kalichman San Diego Research Ethics Consortium La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology October 20, 2011. Collaboration  Authorship  Peer Review  Publication. Peer Review: Abbreviated History. Research & researchers: judged primarily by peers.

ebony
Télécharger la présentation

Publication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Publication Michael KalichmanSan Diego Research Ethics Consortium La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology October 20, 2011

  2. Collaboration  Authorship  Peer Review  Publication

  3. Peer Review:Abbreviated History • Research & researchers: judged primarily by peers. • Mid-1700s: Documented peer review mechanisms • Much of last century: Principal mechanism by which quality of research is judged • Applications of peer review in academia: • Most respected research findings • Funding decisions • Academic advancement: • peer review of candidate's academic career • based on peer-reviewed publications and funding

  4. Peer Review:Why? • Much of academic inquiry relatively specialized • Peers with similar expertise are in best position to judge one another's work • Largely designed to evaluate relative quality of research • Can also be a valuable tool to improve: • a manuscript • a grant application, or • the focus of an academic career

  5. Peer Review Limitations: Perceived and Real • Many attempts to examine assumptions, most have found problems to be, at worst, infrequent • Peer review does not do well at (Godlee, 2000): • detecting innovative research • filtering out fraudulent, plagiarized, redundant publications • Process highly subjective, reviewers may be: • inclined to take advantage of privileged information • biased in favor of well-known researchers, or researchers at prestigious institutions • biased against work of competitors • biased against work inconsistent with their perceptions[Ernst and Resch, 1994] • biased against women [Wennerds and Wold, 1997]

  6. Peer Review:Guidelines • Most organizations reviewing research have specific guidelines regarding: • Confidentiality • Conflicts of interest • Many organizations and institutions have guidelines dealing explicitly with the responsibilities of peer reviewers: • American Chemical Society (1996) • Society for Neuroscience (1999) • Council of Biology Editors (CBE Peer Review Retreat Consensus Group, 1995).

  7. Peer Review:Questions • Blinding in Peer Review?    

  8. Peer Review:Questions • Should you: • be asked to review a paper sent to your supervisor for review? • review work of a close friend? • review work of a close competitor? • change the direction of your research based on a privileged, unpublished communication?

  9. Peer Review:Guidelines What should we expect asminimal ethical guidelinesfor peer review?

  10. Peer Review:Guidelines • Timely • Competent • Unbiased • Confidential • Secure • Constructive

  11. Publication Guidelines What should we expect asminimal ethical guidelinesfor publication?

  12. Publication Guidelines • Substantial contribution; not redundant • Human or animal subjects; stem cells • Statistical methods • Accurate citation of literature • No Misrepresentation • Disclose conflicts of interest • Errata, corrections, and retractions

More Related