1. Publication Michael Kalichman San Diego Research Ethics Consortium La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology October 20, 2011

2. Collaboration  Authorship  Peer Review  Publication

3. Peer Review: Abbreviated History Research & researchers: judged primarily by peers. Mid-1700s: Documented peer review mechanisms Much of last century: Principal mechanism by which quality of research is judged Applications of peer review in academia: Most respected research findings Funding decisions Academic advancement: peer review of candidate's academic career based on peer-reviewed publications and funding

4. Peer Review: Why? Much of academic inquiry relatively specialized Peers with similar expertise are in best position to judge one another's work Largely designed to evaluate relative quality of research Can also be a valuable tool to improve: a manuscript a grant application, or the focus of an academic career

5. Peer Review Limitations: Perceived and Real Many attempts to examine assumptions, most have found problems to be, at worst, infrequent Peer review does not do well at (Godlee, 2000): detecting innovative research filtering out fraudulent, plagiarized, redundant publications Process highly subjective, reviewers may be: inclined to take advantage of privileged information biased in favor of well-known researchers, or researchers at prestigious institutions biased against work of competitors biased against work inconsistent with their perceptions [Ernst and Resch, 1994] biased against women [Wennerds and Wold, 1997]

6. Peer Review: Guidelines Most organizations reviewing research have specific guidelines regarding: Confidentiality Conflicts of interest Many organizations and institutions have guidelines dealing explicitly with the responsibilities of peer reviewers: American Chemical Society (1996) Society for Neuroscience (1999) Council of Biology Editors (CBE Peer Review Retreat Consensus Group, 1995).

7. Peer Review: Questions Blinding in Peer Review? Authors IdentifiedDe-identified Reviewers Identified De-identified

8. Peer Review: Questions Should you: be asked to review a paper sent to your supervisor for review? review work of a close friend? review work of a close competitor? change the direction of your research based on a privileged, unpublished communication?

9. What should we expect as minimal ethical guidelines for peer review? Peer Review: Guidelines

10. 1.Timely 2.Competent 3.Unbiased 4.Confidential 5.Secure 6.Constructive Peer Review: Guidelines

11. What should we expect as minimal ethical guidelines for publication? Publication Guidelines

12. 1.Substantial contribution; not redundant 2.Human or animal subjects; stem cells 3.Statistical methods 4.Accurate citation of literature 5.No Misrepresentation 6.Disclose conflicts of interest 7.Errata, corrections, and retractions