Login / Signup

Safeguarding scientific integrity: A case study in examining manipulation in the peer review process.

Leslie D McIntoshCynthia Hudson Vitale
Published in: Accountability in research (2023)
This case study analyzes the expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and objectivity of editors, authors, and peer reviewers involved in a 2022 special journal issue on fertility, pregnancy, and mental health. Data were collected on qualifications, organizational affiliations, and relationships among six papers' authors, three guest editors, and twelve peer reviewers. Two articles were found to have undisclosed conflicts of interest between authors, an editor, and multiple peer reviewers affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy and lobbying groups, indicating compromised objectivity. This lack of transparency undermines the peer review process and enables biased research and disinformation proliferation.Our study is limited by a few factors including: difficulty collecting peer reviewer data, potentially missing affiliations, and a small sample without comparisons. While this is a case study of one special issue, we do have suggestions for increasing integrity.
Keyphrases
  • mental health
  • electronic health record
  • big data
  • risk assessment
  • young adults
  • climate change
  • artificial intelligence
  • human health
  • water soluble