Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils.
- Author:
Horacio RIVERA
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords: Fake Peer Review; Inappropriate Authorship; Authorship Trade; Retractions; Publication Ethics
- MeSH: Asian Continental Ancestry Group; Authorship*; Dissent and Disputes; Ethics; Humans; Peer Review*; Plagiarism; Publications; Research Report; Sexism
- From:Journal of Korean Medical Science 2019;34(2):e6-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.
