The ethics of reviewing

Abstract

At the time of writing, I had just returned from the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) conference in Cork. The discussion was far from inane with debate ranging from the increasing challenge of publication misconduct to the obligations of editors and an update regarding developments in bibliometrics. There were several thought-provoking presentations that focused on ethics. Findings from a survey report by Shawn Kennedy (Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Nursing (AJN)) and colleagues, for example, related to ‘inappropriate authorship in nursing publications’. Some readers may not have considered the definition and implications of authorship. This can present ethical challenges, particularly when there are ‘honorary authors’ and ‘ghost authors’. Geraldine Pearson, from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), shared examples of publication misconduct and case studies submitted to COPE. These highlighted the serious implications of deviations from ethical practice for participants, researchers, organisations and the research area. Alan Kelly, an editor from University College Cork, offered some other examples of publication misconduct, for example, plagiarism, salami slicing, fabrication and falsification of data. He also shared some of the everyday challenges of being an editor, such as finding reviewers to review manuscripts. He argued that academics who publish have an obligation to review at least two articles per paper published. The obligation of academics to review has been emphasised also by Charon Pierson in a very helpful publication entitled Reviewing Journal Manuscripts. She states,