Three researchers at ETH Zurich's Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education (D-GESS) have reportedly addressed review procedures for publishing scientific papers. Dr. Lutz Bornmann, Dr. Irina Nast and Prof. Hans-Dieter Daniel are set to publish an article titled 'Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts?' in the journal Scientometrics.
The ETH Zurich study explored the rules that define acceptance standards for the publication of scientific manuscripts. The project evaluated 46 research studies published between 1967 and 2006 that examined editors' and referees' criteria for the assessment of manuscripts and their grounds for accepting or rejecting them. According to the project, scientific papers were reviewed based on nine main criteria which reviewers felt were most important. Each of those nine areas had up to six different underlying dimensions.
The ETH Zurich researchers primarily focused on ethics, the last of the nine criteria that were listed in descending order. 'Relevance of contribution' was number one, seemingly influenced by a manuscript's perceived 'importance, newness and originality'. It was noted that none of the 46 studies defined falsification of information or fabrication of data as a specific area on which to focus.
Despite this omission, the ETH Zurich researchers found repeated instances of 'quality of research' as one of the underlying themes of each of the top three main criteria. The researchers wrap up that the importance of 'quality of research' in the assessment of a manuscript does play a significant role in the review process. This stands in opposition to criticism levelled at the peer review process in the wake of the recent sensational incidents of scientific fraud.
More News in this Theme
