What's Happening?
A recent analysis of 18,400 articles from four open-access publications has found that peer reviewers are more likely to approve manuscripts that cite their own work. The study, which is yet to be peer-reviewed, was inspired by anecdotes from authors who felt compelled to cite articles at the request of reviewers. The research, led by Adrian Barnett from Queensland University of Technology, highlights the potential for the peer-review process to become transactional when reviewers request citations to boost their h-index, a metric reflecting the impact of their publications. The study examined articles from platforms like F1000Research and Wellcome Open Research, where all article versions and reviewer comments are publicly available. It found that reviewers who were cited were more likely to approve the article after the first review compared to those who were not cited. However, reviewers who suggested their own research be cited were less likely to approve the article than reject it or express reservations.
AD
Why It's Important?
The findings of this study have significant implications for the academic publishing industry, as they suggest a potential bias in the peer-review process that could affect the integrity of scientific research. If reviewers are influenced by personal gain, such as increasing their citation count, it could lead to the approval of articles based on factors other than scientific merit. This practice, known as coercive citation, is generally considered poor practice and could undermine the credibility of published research. The study's results may prompt publishers and academic institutions to re-evaluate their peer-review processes to ensure fairness and objectivity, potentially leading to policy changes that discourage coercive citation practices.
What's Next?
The study's findings may lead to increased scrutiny of the peer-review process and calls for greater transparency and accountability in academic publishing. Publishers might consider implementing stricter guidelines for reviewers to prevent coercive citation practices. Additionally, there could be a push for more open data sharing from publishers to facilitate further research into peer-review practices. Academic institutions may also need to educate reviewers on ethical review practices to maintain the integrity of the peer-review system.
Beyond the Headlines
The study raises ethical concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest in the peer-review process. It highlights the need for a cultural shift in academia towards valuing the quality of research over citation metrics. This could lead to long-term changes in how academic success is measured, moving away from metrics like the h-index towards more holistic evaluations of a researcher's contributions to their field.
