|
|
|
Please note: This reports dates from 1989. While the basic premises of responsible conduct of research have not changed, additional practices may be needed to meet today's obligations, for example, procedures needed to comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
The University of Michigan Medical School
Guidelines for the Responsible Conduct of Research
Other Report Sections:
Introduction / Mentorship / Data Management / Authorship / Industrial-Academic Interface / Academic Environment /
Table of Contents / Committee Composition and Charge
Rights and Responsibilities of Peer Review
1. Rights
a) anonymity should be guaranteed to the reviewer
2. Responsibilities
a) accept material for review only if qualified to do so
b) preserve the integrity of the review process
c) maintain confidentiality at all times
d) insure impartiality by identifying any potential conflicts of interest
e) document the basis for negative evaluations
f) strive to be reasonable and fair, particularly in requesting additional data
g) submit reviews in timely fashion
Rights and Responsibilities of Peer Review
The process of peer review is of vital importance in maintaining the quality and integrity of the biomedical sciences. Indeed, it is on the basis of this time-honored process that the field has been self-policed. By living up to the responsibilities of peer review, it is possible to advance any field of scientific study while at the same time preventing faulty or fraudulent research from achieving the impetus of recognition. It is only through effective peer review that scientists and scholars can guarantee the highest standards of their profession.
The peer review system, both in the process of deciding on awards of research grants and in the review of scientific manuscripts, relies on the unpaid and voluntary efforts, often very time-consuming, of fellow scientists. In order for this system to work optimally, the reviewer should be a recognized authority on the subject under review. If the reviewer feels that he is not sufficiently knowledgeable to review the subject in an expert fashion, he should not accept the manuscript or grant application for review. In many instances he will know the applicant; it is, therefore, an obvious right, and an obligation, that he remain anonymous before and after publication.
Above all, the reviewer has the responsibility for preserving the integrity of the review process. In receiving a manuscript or a grant proposal, he is entrusted with privileged information that is unavailable to anyone outside of the laboratory of the submitting scientist(s). It is of obvious importance for the reviewer not to make use of information gained in the review for his own purposes until it is published or, prior to that, only by consent of the author. A closely related responsibility of the reviewer is to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. The contents of a work under review should not be distributed to other colleagues. There are certain exceptions to this general rule, however. For example, it should be permissible to discuss parts, or even all, of a submitted work with trusted colleagues to obtain a second opinion in instances when the reviewer is unfamiliar with the methodology or considers the author to be mistaken. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for the reviewer to identify to the overseer of the review (e.g. editor or study section) the various colleagues who assisted with the review.
It is the responsibility of the reviewer to give a fair and impartial consideration of the material under review. If he feels that he has a conflict of interest, he should identify it immediately and return the grant application or manuscript. Conflicts of interest under these circumstances might include situations in which the reviewer is a direct competitor or a mentor of the party submitting work for review or, alternatively, if the reviewer may derive a direct personal benefit from the review. If, on the other hand, the reviewer is convinced that he can provide an unbiased opinion of the submitted material and the overseer of the review (e.g. editor or study section) concurs, then it would be appropriate for the opinion to be provided with full disclosure of the potential conflict of interest.
In providing a review, whether positive or negative, it is important for the reviewer to document the reasons for the opinions. It is inappropriate for a reviewer to provide a negative opinion of a submitted work without demonstrating the logic for the conclusion so that the submitting party can respond with appropriate revisions or a reasonable rebuttal. In most instances, the reviewer should be able to provide direct evidence, either by citation from the published literature or from his own research efforts, to support his conclusions. It is the duty of the reviewer to be reasonable in the evaluation and judgment of a submitted work. If he thinks that the manuscript or grant proposal would be improved substantially by more experimental evidence, it is obviously fair to suggest such experiments. However, if such extra evidence would only add marginally to an already strong case, or would be beyond the scope of the project or the facilities available to the investigator, it would be unreasonable for the reviewer to request or demand such extra evidence.
Finally, the reviewer has the responsibility of carrying out his review in a timely fashion. If he knows that he will not be able to meet the deadline set by the director or grant agency, he should return the manuscript or proposal.
Other Report Sections:
Introduction / Mentorship / Data Management / Authorship / Industrial-Academic Interface / Academic Environment /
Table of Contents / Committee Composition and Charge
This page last updated August 12, 1999.
disclaimer added May 2004