Peer review from a researcher’s perspective

Maverick Affiliate Senior Associate, Maria Machado is co-chair of Peer Review Week 2024. In a new post for Maverick’s peer review series, Maria draws upon her extensive experience as a writer, peer reviewer, and auditor to highlight some of the peer review issues faced by researchers and editors along with her recommendations for solutions. In our first installment, Maverick’s head of Technology & Content, Nancy Roberts, examined the use of technology to develop tools for helping publishers verify the integrity of papers.

I recently had the opportunity to meet Dr. Elisabeth Bik and hear her speak about several types of image duplication. It brought me back to my own experience auditing papers—I analysed papers that were flagged as “of concern.” The issues ranged from figure legends that did not match what they were supposed to describe to outright nonsense. I even saw a graph on bee pollination pathways in a tuberculosis epidemiology paper.

Nowadays, paper mills will translate and back-translate previously published papers, producing pearls of paraphrasing like “chest peril” or “bosom malignancy” when referring to breast cancer. These tortured phrases escape detection due to a myriad of reasons. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with them if they are taken out of context. Editorial desk checks that use advanced LLM-type systems embedded in the context would be ahead of the game and greatly speed up the time to first decision.

However, the most common red flags linked to paper mill activity were scope mismatch between the study and the target journal and inappropriate citations. Irrelevant, hidden, or “sneaked” citations are a growing concern, as they manipulate journal-level metrics and the indicators most commonly used to measure publisher impact. Applying transparent citation and metadata deposition policies could mitigate this issue. It means that plagiarism detection would be insufficient, especially when methodological shortcut citations are encouraged by the EU. Modular professional development for publishers and editors is needed to keep pace with these ever-evolving policy developments.

In the most severe cases I analysed, studies involving people or animals did not mention ethical approval. This doesn’t mean there was wilful fabrication or any harm caused. Most of the researchers authoring clinical and preclinical studies communicate their findings in English, but this is not their first language. Automated tools included within the manuscript submission system would enable studies to include appropriate funding, conflict of interest, or data availability statements, written in language compliant with reporting standards.

The “peer review crisis” was only exacerbated by COVID-19. Those traditionally excluded from the process consider specialized training in peer review insufficient. Offering training or technical support for doing peer reviews could help engage researchers and peer reviewers from developing countries and enable associations and societies to build diverse researcher communities.

This year’s Peer Review Week will shine a spotlight on innovation and technology. Whether supported by AI or unaided, peer review is increasingly expected to serve as a quality assurance mechanism. Integration of this process into the editorial workflow would undoubtedly streamline and optimize knowledge dissemination, since publishing peer reviews as scholarly output is ever more popular.

Learn More

Maverick offers a program of research integrity services, including training to help editors be alert to red flags and to help publishers create an automated workflow to ensure safeguards are integrated throughout the process – from manuscript submission and peer review to publication and data management. Our unique structure allows us to assemble teams with the exact skills needed to support each project. Contact your Maverick representative or info@maverick-os.com for a free consultation.

By Maria Machado, PhD, Affiliate Senior Associate

Maria Machado is a writer, reviewer, analyst, and blogger. Throughout her scientific career, she published on microcirculation and vascular physiology. At Bio-protocol, she edited papers, produced research article templates, and streamlined peer review processes. Now, she specializes in reviewing scientific papers (over 400), FAIR research design, and science communication. She hopes to standardize peer review practices through training and is the co-chair of Peer Review Week 2024. She advocates for transparent practices, equity, and effective training.

 

Further Reading

Maverick Peer Review Support service sheet

The role of AI in research integrity

A researcher’s perspective on research integrity

When good intentions drive bad behavior

Image manipulation – we can tell when you’re faking it.

Paper mills research report and recommendations

Download Maverick’s Research Integrity service sheet

Top