Strengthening the Peer Review Process for the International Journal of Toxicology

Abstract

As scientists, we devote considerable time and effort in sharpening our skills to become better at our craft. It is disheartening, therefore, when we learn of another case of either scientific misconduct (eg, data falsification) or that the peer review process has failed our science. Recent instances of repurposing published data for new and sometimes multiple publications have been noted in submissions to International Journal of Toxicology (IJT). To get an idea of the scope of this problem, one should consult Retraction Watch, a Web site where the circumstances leading to manuscript retractions are discussed (http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com). At the last Society of Toxicology meeting (March 2014), there was a session on scientific misconduct. In that session, the speakers talked about research misconduct, plagiarism, authorship of manuscripts, and the legal requirements of scientific research (www.toxicology.org). Several key findings consistent with scientific misconduct were cited in that symposium including data falsification. Why do trained scientists engage in such behaviors? Is attempting to publish falsified data done to ensure more federal research funds or enhance the curriculum vitae for a promotion, tenure, or external recognition? Regardless of the motivation, when these instances are identified, the careers of the investigator are seriously jeopardized and can include civil or criminal penalties. Our colleagues in the industry will remember the incidents at Industrial Bio-Test Labs that ultimately led to institution of the Good Laboratory Practice regulations. The premise of this editorial is to point out that the peer review process is often not a high ‘‘hurdle or barrier’’ to publishing. When reviewers contemplate whether they should undertake the review of a manuscript, they should take into account their own time constraints (jobs and family commitments) as well as whether they have the knowledge base and absence of a conflict of interest that would make them appropriate reviewers for the manuscript. How much time should be devoted to a manuscript review? Having reviewed submitted manuscripts for many years for multiple toxicology journals, the devoted time is dependent on the quality and complexity of the submitted manuscript. Provenzale and Stanley address many of the issues of the peer review process and is highly recommended reading for new or even experienced reviewers. This publication is somewhat dated, but the content remains very pertinent. A second item that impacts the peer review process is the degree of scientific understanding of the submitted manuscript. This is more of an issue for journal editors and associate editors as they solicit reviewers. Do the editor and associate editor know the field or experts that can serve as reviewers? This issue is overcome by having a diversity of expertise within an editorial board and knowledge of potential reviewers beyond the editorial board. Furthermore, instructions to authors state that editors have the right to request original data for review. Overall, it is incumbent upon invited reviewers to decline an invited review if they do not have the expertise or experience to conduct a fair and knowledgeable review of the submitted manuscript. The repurposing of data for multiple publications is something that can be captured by the peer review process provided the reviewer spends the needed time with the submitted manuscript. Reviewers need to familiarize themselves with prior publications from the research group submitting a manuscript. Authors must be reminded that reuse of their own prior data is allowable, but the correct procedures for doing this must be followed. In this day of digital submissions and review, permission to reuse one’s own data can often be requested, and granted promptly, from the same portal from which a PDF or an HTML form of a published manuscript can be accessed. Arjo et al published a peer review of a study and cited poor experimental design, concerns with interpretation of the results, and the apparent lack of complete reporting of the data. The published study subject of the review by Arjo et al was published in a separate journal by Seralini et al. The fundamental issue expressed by Arjo et al was that the publication of Seralini et al clearly showed the failure of the peer review process, despite the high level of respect within the toxicology community for the journal (Food and Chemical Toxicology; FCT). Why the peer review process failed cannot be determined since members of the editorial board for that journal are wellknown and respected toxicologists. The article of Seralini et al