{"id":93954,"date":"2013-01-18T12:44:27","date_gmt":"2013-01-18T14:44:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/?p=93954"},"modified":"2013-01-18T12:44:27","modified_gmt":"2013-01-18T14:44:27","slug":"reviewing-one%e2%80%99s-own-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/reviewing-one%e2%80%99s-own-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewing one\u2019s own work"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Daniel Bueno<\/span>Editors of several scientific publications have decided to step up their attention to selecting article reviewers after detecting an unusual type of fraud:\u00a0 some researchers had found a way to conduct peer review of their own papers to escape the critique that can delay or prevent publication of manuscripts.\u00a0 According to The Chronicle of Higher Education<\/em>, several journals have retracted nearly 40 articles whose researchers engaged in this type of fraud.\u00a0 The method was ingenious:\u00a0 the authors gave the editors a list of names of reviewers whose e-mail accounts were actually controlled by the authors themselves.\u00a0 \u201cI found it strange, because I sent out the article and received very enthusiastic assessments in just two days.\u00a0 Reviewers never respond that quickly,\u201d said Claudio Supuran, editor-in-chief of the Journal of <\/em>Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry <\/em>who discovered and reported the fraud perpetrated by South Korean Hyung-In Moon, assistant professor at Dong-A University in Busan.\u00a0 In 2010, Moon had submitted an article for publication and suggested a list of possible reviewers.\u00a0 Despite the extremely rapid response, the article ended up being published because it was endorsed by two of the magazine\u2019s other trusted reviewers.\u00a0 The following year, Moon sent another article along with another list of potential reviewers.\u00a0 What drew Supuran\u2019s attention was that while the reviewers were affiliated with universities, their emails were from Gmail and Yahoo addresses rather than from the institutions.\u00a0 Once the fraud was discovered, Supuran alerted other publications.\u00a0 The outcome was that 28 articles by the South Korean have now been retracted.\u00a0 Another case came to light in July 2012 with the withdrawal of a scientific paper published in the journal Experimental Parasitology<\/em> by Guang-Zi He, researcher at Guiyang College of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China.\u00a0 He suggested several possible reviewers who really did exist, but the emails he provided were all connected to email services in China even though the names were from several different countries.\u00a0 The suspicion led to an investigation, which culminated in the suspension of an article published in February 2012 in which the researcher had identified a potential target for a vaccine against a bacterial infection.\u00a0 The case reveals a shortcoming on the part of the editors.\u00a0 The journal Experimental Parasitology<\/em> belongs to the publisher Elsevier, which also experienced a similar problem in a mathematics journal.\u00a0 The company, which has a database of reviewers whom it is required to use, reported that it had discovered a vulnerability in its system and has now corrected it.\u00a0 Any author may suggest names of reviewers or ask that its his or her articles not be sent to rivals.\u00a0 But it is up to the editors to make use of the contact information found in its own database rather than what is provided by the authors.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Reviewing one\u2019s own work","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[155],"tags":[],"coauthors":[93],"class_list":["post-93954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-practices"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93954","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93954"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=93954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}