You are here: CTSPedia>ResearchEthics Web>BrowseBy>CaseStudiesRCR>EthicsCaseStudy004 (13 Nov 2011, MarkYarborough)EditAttach
Tags:
create new tag
, view all tags, tagging instructions
Return to Browse by

Return to RCR Case Studies

Please Comment on the Teaching Quality of the CASE

 

Please rate the graphic:

  • 5 stars = highest rating
  • 1 star = lowest rating
  • SCORE = average of all votes
Graph Rating
12345
Score: 2, My vote: 0, Total votes: 1

EthicsCaseStudyForm edit

Title UAB Peer Review
Long Title

Contributor/Contact Dale J. Benos, PhD (benos@physiology@uab.edu)
Contributor Details Dale J. Benos, PhD
Chairman of the Department of Physiology and Biophysics
The University of Alabama at Birmingham in Birmingham
CTSA Alabama
Case Study Provided The journal editor sent a paper to an outside referee to review. The editor’s cover letter specifically stated that if the reviewer is unable to provide a review in the time frame specified, the reviewer may ask a colleague to assist. The senior author of that manuscript, by chance, was visiting the institution of the reviewer after the paper was submitted to the journal. During her visit, she was being escorted through the laboratory of the reviewer and noticed, in a reception area, multiple copies of her manuscript on a coffee table. She asked her escort (a graduate student of this laboratory) about the papers on the table. The graduate student, who was unaware that she was the author of the manuscript on the desk, stated that as part of the laboratory’s Journal Club they do group reviews of manuscripts that the senior investigator has been asked to review. On returning to her own laboratory, she telephoned the editor with the complaint that her manuscript was circulated among her research competitors at another university. The editor, in turn, telephoned the reviewer who stated that he routinely asks his laboratory to review manuscripts as a group, primarily because of the teaching value of such an experience. The "review group" consists of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty members. In general, the reviewer assembles all the comments into one review, signs the forms, and takes responsibility for the review. The reviewer felt that the procedure produces well-done reviews containing lots of constructive criticism.
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics No Data acquisition_management_sharing and ownership Topics
Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics No mentor and trainee responsibilities topics
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics No publication practices and responsible authorship topics
Peer Review Topics
The significance of peer review,
Conflicts of interest and peer reviews,
Qualities of a good review and reviewer,
Logistics of peer reviewing,
Responding to reviewers,
Reviewer roles in ensuring RCR,
Editorial responsibilities
Collaborative Science Topics No collaborative science topics
Research Misconduct Topics No research misconduct topics
Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics No conflicts of interest_law_and policy topics
Human Subjects

Citation

URL

RCR Keyword Peer Review, Manuscript, Journal Club, Journal, Editor
Other RCR Keywords

Case Difficulty Quick
Type of Case

Source for Topic Areas Du Bois, J., & Dueker, J. (2009). Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70.
References

Other

Edit | Attach | Print version | History: r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 13 Nov 2011 - 12:24:55 - MarkYarborough
 
Copyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding CTSPedia? Send feedback