@article{bibcite_5886,
  keywords = {bias, ethics, Journal peer review, Reform},
  author = {David B. Resnik and Christina Gutierrez-Ford and Shyamal Peddada},
  title = {Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study},
  abstract = {This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8\% (SE~=~3.3\%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5\%, SE~=~3.4\%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7\% (SE~=~2.8\%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7\% (SE~=~2.6\%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6\% (SE~=~2.0\%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8\%, SE~=~1.7\%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5\%, SE~=~1.5\%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review.},
  year = {2008},
  journal = {Science and Engineering Ethics},
  volume = {14},
  pages = {305-310},
  month = {2008-09-01},
  issn = {1471-5546},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4},
  doi = {10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4},
  language = {en},
}