An Improved Peer-Review System to Compensate for Scientific Misconduct in Health-Sensitive Topics

  1. Alessandro Rovetta
  2. Rossana Garavaglia
  3. Alessandro Vitale
  4. Ettore Meccia
  5. Behailu Terefe Tesfaye
  6. Paolo Mezzana
  7. Vincenzo Accurso

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

With this letter, we do ask the scientific community to take a clear position and make itself heard with a stentorian voice to protect public health from ethical misconduct. This renewal would lead not only to direct benefits to the research but also to the public image of the whole scientific world, thanks to a novel, more transparent, efficient, and effective procedure of academic publication. Alongside this, the goal is also to decrease the number of infodemic publications circulating in and out of the scientific community, especially if they concern health-sensitive topics like new drugs and vaccines.

Article activity feed

  1. PeerRef

    Peer review report

    Title: An Improved Peer-Review System to Compensate for Scientific Misconduct in Health-Sensitive Topics

    version: 7

    Referee: Ksenija Bazdaric

    Institution: Rijeka University

    email: ksenija.bazdaric@fzsri.uniri.hr

    ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2977-3686

    General assessment

    Overall, it is an interesting manuscript/opinion paper that deserves attention. However, I think some points are not realistic at the moment and applicable to most of the medical journals.

    Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript

    A - I would add some data about author’s responsibility in terms of research integrity, not only sharing data and analysis.

    A4 - It is not clear how would obligatory preprint improve quality because we have data that only 1% of preprints are reviewed.

    J – the mechanisms you suggest are reserved only for major journals who have a lot of paid stuff. How can a small journal (published by a society), where not even editors are paid, not to mention reviewers, ensure better quality?

    I1 – it is not completely clear what do you mean here and how is this connected to research integrity.

    Other suggestions to improve the manuscript

    A2 - frameworks for enhancing quality in preclinical data - please be more specific, insert a reference or a guideline.

    A3 - authors are already obliged to put the study protocol in a registry, like clinicaltrials.gov, so I suppose this refers to other types of studies.

    Decision

    Verified with reservations: The content is academically sound but has shortcomings that could be improved by further studies and/or minor revisions.

  2. PeerRef

    Peer review report

    Title: An Improved Peer-Review System to Compensate for Scientific Misconduct in Health-Sensitive Topics

    version: 7

    Referee: Cristina Candal-Pedreira

    Institution: University of Santiago de Compostela

    email: cristina.candal.pedreira@rai.usc.es

    ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1703- 3592

    General assessment

    In this letter, the authors propose a series of actions that the main actors responsible for scientific integrity (researchers, scientific journals, academic institutions, and funding entities) could (and should) implement to prevent and/or detect cases of scientific misconduct. Although the authors refer primarily to high-sensitive publications, in my opinion, many (if not all) of the provided proposals can be applied to any type of publication. Examples of scientific misconduct are commonplace, and the policies implemented so far do not seem to be strong enough to prevent the publication of fraudulent articles. I believe that this article is necessary and very relevant.

    Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript

    In my opinion, this letter presents a very comprehensive list of potential strategies that different stakeholders can undertake to reduce the burden of research misconduct. Of course, there are many other actions that could be implemented, such as promoting post- publication review, imposing sanctions, or auditing research funding from an ethical point of view, among others. However, I consider all the strategies developed by the authors to be important and necessary, so I have no essential revisions to this manuscript.

    Other suggestions to improve the manuscript

    The text is well written, very clear and easy to follow.

    Some comments/suggestions/reflections:

    I would suggest introducing the definition of “high sensitivity topic” in the first part of the manuscript. Also, in the title another term is used (health-sensitivity topic), I would homogenize terms.

    J2. In addition to solving the problem of coercive citations, open peer review can make the peer review process more transparent by making public how many rounds of review have been done and how the conclusion was reached to publish or reject the article. In addition, reviewers, because they are not anonymous, can take the review more seriously.

    R1-R2-R3. Regarding regulatory agencies, funders and institutions, it could also be helpful for them to perform audits of the projects, not only justification of where the money was spent, but also whether the research is being done ethically, including during the phase of dissemination of results.

    Decision

    Verified: The content is academically sound, only minor amendments (if any) are suggested.

  3. Version published to 10.31219/osf.io/dx9n5 on OSF Preprints