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 CASE:

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

EthicsCaseStudyForm edit

Title Peer-Review
Long Title Investigator vs. Reviewers and the Editor
Contributor/Contact Daniel T. Lackland, DRPH (lackland@musc.edu)
Contributor Details Daniel T. Lackland, DRPH
Department of Neurosciences
Institute of Human Values in Health Care
Medical University of South Carolina
Case Study Provided An internationally recognized investigator has submitted a manuscript with a new clinical test for metabolic disease. The investigator has an arrogant attitude that is well known. The paper was rejected by reviewers as too definitive. The investigator is outraged and writes a hard letter to the Editor regarding the “unprofessional and unfair review”. In response, the Editor sends the paper to “special” reviewers who reject the paper again with nearly 100 negative comments.
The investigator is further outraged and sends a letter to the professional society board that governs the journal with the letter to the editor, and second reviews which appeared as overkill.
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics

Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics

Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics No publication practices and responsible authorship topics,
Inappropriate authorship practices
Peer Review Topics No peer review topics,
The significance of peer review,
Conflicts of interest and peer reviews,
Qualities of a good review and reviewer,
Responding to reviewers,
Editorial responsibilities
Collaborative Science Topics

Research Misconduct Topics

Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics

Human Subjects


URL https://sctr.musc.edu/
RCR Keyword Peer Review, Manuscript, Journal, Editor, Reviewer
Other RCR Keywords Investigator
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.


Topic revision: r2 - 04 Jan 2012 - 19:24:33 - MaryBanach
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