View source for Theme:Fb1a2e2a-aa2a-4eb4-ac9c-c9567c2b401b

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:85c71a25-b26a-4631-9620-05a9a84e3fd3
|Title=Fake peer-reviewing
|Is About=Fake reviewing, or self-reviewing, involves recommending a fake reviewer during the peer-review process.<ref>Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. ''Nature News'', ''515''(7528), 480.Accessed via: https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400</ref> Fake or self-review manipulates the review process and guarantees a paper receives a positive review. This is considered a questionable research practice.<ref>Bouter, L. M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. C., & Ter Riet, G. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', ''1''(1), 17.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Peer reviewing is a pillar of the scientific process, improving the quality of published research. Within the article submission process, many journals allow authors to suggest peer reviewers. By providing fake email addresses generated by the author themselves, authors can manipulate the peer-review process. Several forms of ‘fake reviewing’ can be distinguished:

#Authors can refer to existing scientists, but provide fake email addresses;
#Authors can refer to ficticious reviewers, supplemented with an email address;
#Third parties offering services can also provide fake reviews. <ref name=":0">COPE. https://publicationethics.org/files/McCooK_Can%20you%20spot%20a%20fake%20COPE%202016.pdf</ref>


If Journal editors are unable to detect the fake reviewers, articles might be published without the quality control of sufficient genuine peer review. All major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, Wiley, and Informa have retracted papers because of fake reviews. <ref>Allison McCook (2016). Springer, BMC retracting nearly 60 papers for fake reviews and other issues. Retraction Watch Accessed via: https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/01/springer-bmc-retracting-nearly-60-papers-for-fake-reviews-and-other-issues/</ref><ref>Victoria Stern (2017) Elsevier retracting 26 papers accepted because of fake reviews. Retraction Watch. Accessed via: https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/21/elsevier-retracting-26-papers-accepted-fake-reviews/</ref><ref name=":0" /> As of 2020 over 600 articles have been retracted because of fake reviewing according to the Retraction Watch Database.<ref>http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx? Search word: fake peer review. Accessed 10-2-2020</ref> COPE estimates that 10% of retractions are due to fake reviewing. <ref name=":0" />


Below a list of ‘red flags’ in peer review can be found, which should raise suspicions about authors aiming to fake the review process.


Red flags in peer-review<ref>(1)  Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. ''Nature News'', ''515''(7528), 480.Accessed via: https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400</ref>: 

<br />

*“The author asks to exclude some reviewers, then provides a list of almost every scientist in the field.
*The author recommends reviewers who are strangely difficult to find online.
*The author provides Gmail, Yahoo or other free e-mail addresses to contact suggested reviewers, rather than e-mail addresses from an academic institution.
*Within hours of being requested, the reviews come back. They are glowing.
*Even reviewer number three likes the paper.”

<br />
<references />
|Important For=Journal editors; Journal publishers; Authors; PhD students; Postdocs
|Has Best Practice=Considering fake review, there are several strategies journals can implement to overcome the challenges. A first strategy is not accepting the requests of peer reviewers from the authors. The reviewers are chosen by the journal editors, and ensure there are no ‘fake reviewers’. However, many journals cannot find (enough) peer reviewers, and granting the request can be time saving for journals.<ref name=":0">Publons (2019) Home page. Accessed via: https://publons.com/about/home/</ref> At times, journals need to rely on the requests of authors to find peer reviewers at all. 

A second strategy is implementing an easy system that verifies reviewers. One online platform created to facilitate verification is Publons.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Alisson McCook (2017). Can you spot a fake? New tool aims to help journals identify fake reviews. Retraction Watch Accessed via: https://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/04/can-spot-fake-new-tool-aims-help-journals-identify-fake-reviews/</ref> Here, journal editors can do background checks on the reviewers, and easily check their contributions in the field. In addition, reviewers get recognition for their reviews, even if these are anonymous. <ref>Publons (2019) Get recognition for your reviews for MDPI. Accessed via: https://publons.com/in/mdpi/</ref>

<br />
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E3a1be4e-2ff9-4b7f-b44c-abd409fe225a;Resource:A2fda758-06fa-47d9-9fdd-7f12fe36e8ee;Resource:00acb1b9-0b7e-4687-ace7-5dab5632e3ee
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ba949c86-a4cc-4231-996d-7bf601d9cfa9;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:3a32df5c-e6e8-45f9-8132-434db3985a65
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Peer review
}}