Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.
Peer Review, Research/*ethics ; Societies, Medical/ethics

Scientific authors are responsible for the accuracy of their writings and references to others' works. However, relying on authors is not enough when it comes to processing their manuscripts. Joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers throughout the publishing process may prevent most reference errors. This article analyzes essential aspects of bibliographic management and focuses on the importance of validating references by all stakeholders of scholarly publishing.
*Authorship ; *Bibliography as Topic ; Bibliometrics ; *Databases, Bibliographic ; *Editorial Policies ; Peer Review/*methods ; *Periodicals as Topic ; Publishing/*organization & administration