1. ZHAW digitalcollection
  2. Gesundheit
  3. Publikationen
  4. Publikationen Gesundheit
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBornmann, Lutz-
dc.contributor.authorNast, Irina-
dc.contributor.authorDaniel, Hans-Dieter-
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-24T08:10:34Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-24T08:10:34Z-
dc.date.issued2008-
dc.identifier.issn0138-9130de_CH
dc.identifier.issn1588-2861de_CH
dc.identifier.urihttps://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/14603-
dc.description.abstractThe case of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean stem-cell researcher, is arguably the highest profile case in the history of research misconduct. The discovery of Dr. Hwang’s fraud led to fierce criticism of the peer review process (at Science). To find answers to the question of why the journal peer review system did not detect scientific misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data) not only in the Hwang case but also in many other cases, an overview is needed of the criteria that editors and referees normally consider when reviewing a manuscript. Do they at all look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing a manuscript? We conducted a quantitative content analysis of 46 research studies that examined editors’ and referees’ criteria for the assessment of manuscripts and their grounds for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The total of 572 criteria and reasons from the 46 studies could be assigned to nine main areas: (1) ‘relevance of contribution,’ (2) ‘writing / presentation,’ (3) ‘design / conception,’ (4) ‘method / statistics,’ (5) ‘discussion of results,’ (6) ‘reference to the literature and documentation,’ (7) ‘theory,’ (8) ‘author’s reputation / institutional affiliation,’ and (9) ‘ethics.’ None of the criteria or reasons that were assigned to the nine main areas refers to or is related to possible falsification or fabrication of data. In a second step, the study examined what main areas take on high and low significance for editors and referees in manuscript assessment. The main areas that are clearly related to the quality of the research underlying a manuscript emerged in the analysis frequently as important: ‘theory,’ ‘design / conception’ and ‘discussion of results.’de_CH
dc.language.isoende_CH
dc.publisherSpringerde_CH
dc.relation.ispartofScientometricsde_CH
dc.rightsLicence according to publishing contractde_CH
dc.subjectMain Areade_CH
dc.subjectPeer Review Processde_CH
dc.subjectRanking Listde_CH
dc.subjectResearch Misconductde_CH
dc.subject.ddc000: Allgemeines und Wissenschaftde_CH
dc.titleDo editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publicationde_CH
dc.typeBeitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftde_CH
dcterms.typeTextde_CH
zhaw.departementGesundheitde_CH
zhaw.organisationalunitInstitut für Physiotherapie (IPT)de_CH
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2de_CH
zhaw.funding.euNode_CH
zhaw.issue3de_CH
zhaw.originated.zhawNode_CH
zhaw.pages.end432de_CH
zhaw.pages.start415de_CH
zhaw.publication.statuspublishedVersionde_CH
zhaw.volume77de_CH
zhaw.publication.reviewPeer review (Publikation)de_CH
Appears in collections:Publikationen Gesundheit

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record
Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2
Bornmann, L., Nast, I. and Daniel, H.-D. (2008) ‘Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication’, Scientometrics, 77(3), pp. 415–432. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.
L. Bornmann, I. Nast, and H.-D. Daniel, “Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication,” Scientometrics, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 415–432, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.
BORNMANN, Lutz, Irina NAST und Hans-Dieter DANIEL, 2008. Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? : a quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics. 2008. Bd. 77, Nr. 3, S. 415–432. DOI 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2
Bornmann, Lutz, Irina Nast, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2008. “Do Editors and Referees Look for Signs of Scientific Misconduct When Reviewing Manuscripts? : A Quantitative Content Analysis of Studies That Examined Review Criteria and Reasons for Accepting and Rejecting Manuscripts for Publication.” Scientometrics 77 (3): 415–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.
Bornmann, Lutz, et al. “Do Editors and Referees Look for Signs of Scientific Misconduct When Reviewing Manuscripts? : A Quantitative Content Analysis of Studies That Examined Review Criteria and Reasons for Accepting and Rejecting Manuscripts for Publication.” Scientometrics, vol. 77, no. 3, 2008, pp. 415–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.