Abstract
As scientists, we devote considerable time and effort in sharpening our skills to become better at our craft. It is disheartening, therefore, when we learn of another case of either scientific misconduct (eg, data falsification) or that the peer review process has failed our science. Recent instances of repurposing published data for new and sometimes multiple publications have been noted in submissions to International Journal of Toxicology (IJT). To get an idea of the scope of this problem, one should consult Retraction Watch, a Web site where the circumstances leading to manuscript retractions are discussed (http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com).
At the last Society of Toxicology meeting (March 2014), there was a session on scientific misconduct. In that session, the speakers talked about research misconduct, plagiarism, authorship of manuscripts, and the legal requirements of scientific research (www.toxicology.org). Several key findings consistent with scientific misconduct were cited in that symposium including data falsification. Why do trained scientists engage in such behaviors? Is attempting to publish falsified data done to ensure more federal research funds or enhance the curriculum vitae for a promotion, tenure, or external recognition? Regardless of the motivation, when these instances are identified, the careers of the investigator are seriously jeopardized and can include civil or criminal penalties. Our colleagues in the industry will remember the incidents at Industrial Bio-Test Labs that ultimately led to institution of the Good Laboratory Practice regulations. 1
The premise of this editorial is to point out that the peer review process is often not a high “hurdle or barrier” to publishing. When reviewers contemplate whether they should undertake the review of a manuscript, they should take into account their own time constraints (jobs and family commitments) as well as whether they have the knowledge base and absence of a conflict of interest that would make them appropriate reviewers for the manuscript. How much time should be devoted to a manuscript review? Having reviewed submitted manuscripts for many years for multiple toxicology journals, the devoted time is dependent on the quality and complexity of the submitted manuscript. Provenzale and Stanley 2 address many of the issues of the peer review process and is highly recommended reading for new or even experienced reviewers. This publication is somewhat dated, but the content remains very pertinent.
A second item that impacts the peer review process is the degree of scientific understanding of the submitted manuscript. This is more of an issue for journal editors and associate editors as they solicit reviewers. Do the editor and associate editor know the field or experts that can serve as reviewers? This issue is overcome by having a diversity of expertise within an editorial board and knowledge of potential reviewers beyond the editorial board. Furthermore, instructions to authors state that editors have the right to request original data for review. Overall, it is incumbent upon invited reviewers to decline an invited review if they do not have the expertise or experience to conduct a fair and knowledgeable review of the submitted manuscript.
The repurposing of data for multiple publications is something that can be captured by the peer review process provided the reviewer spends the needed time with the submitted manuscript. Reviewers need to familiarize themselves with prior publications from the research group submitting a manuscript. Authors must be reminded that reuse of their own prior data is allowable, but the correct procedures for doing this must be followed. In this day of digital submissions and review, permission to reuse one’s own data can often be requested, and granted promptly, from the same portal from which a PDF or an HTML form of a published manuscript can be accessed.
Arjo et al 3 published a peer review of a study and cited poor experimental design, concerns with interpretation of the results, and the apparent lack of complete reporting of the data. The published study subject of the review by Arjo et al 3 was published in a separate journal by Seralini et al. 4 The fundamental issue expressed by Arjo et al 3 was that the publication of Seralini et al 4 clearly showed the failure of the peer review process, despite the high level of respect within the toxicology community for the journal (Food and Chemical Toxicology; FCT). Why the peer review process failed cannot be determined since members of the editorial board for that journal are well-known and respected toxicologists. The article of Seralini et al 4 has been retracted. This information is cited only as an example of the possible failure of the peer review process, and it is not necessary to further engage in the scientific discussion of the acceptability of the article or the rationale behind the retraction. Portier et al 5 provide a good perspective of that debate. Although this article is cited only as a specific example, this author believes that more examples exist within the literature.
The IJT peer review process relies on experts in the broad field of toxicology, and the editor and associate editors rely on the ability and willingness of reviewers to spend the needed time with submitted articles that they agree to review. Reviewers are encouraged and indeed have brought concerns about poor science, misinterpretation of data, inappropriate reuse of data, and so forth to the editor’s attention.
Some journals have instituted a process of publicly acknowledging journal reviewers for their continued thoroughness during the review process. This is something that IJT is considering with the reviewer being recognized at a meeting, for example, the Annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology. We hope this encourages continued diligence in the peer review process.
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this short editorial is to bring to the attention of the readership and reviewers the issues that continue to occur with the peer review process. At IJT, we strive to have a robust peer review process and that it is very dependent on the reviewers. Therefore, the next time you are asked to review a submitted article, we hope you think about this process and how your review potentially impacts not only the journal but also the scientific community at large. The editor and associate editors extend appreciation to all of our reviewers for their time and effort.