Ethical problems in academic peer review
类别： 热门科学
关键词： innovative breakthroughs , disruptive innovations , subversive research , progress of scientific knowledge
论题描述： Innovative research often challenges established doctrines and encounters resistance from peer reviewers and established scholars. It's crucial to acknowledge that many established scholars align themselves with mainstream theories not necessarily due to genuine conviction, but to protect their professional reputations. Individuals who succeed in challenging mainstream theories may initiate campaigns to address ethical issues within peer review practices they've encountered. However, they often encounter significant obstacles due to the influence of mainstream scientists and the demand for easily publishable papers. Misconduct, such as image misuse and data falsification, is more common within mainstream theories. This unethical behavior involves manipulating data deceptively to support mainstream theory and secure publication. Remarkably, the academic community displays more tolerance for misconduct in peer review compared to image misuse and fabricated data.
置顶内容 上次更新 7个月前
The prevailing perspective assumes that most individuals act with good intentions. However, in specific domains like the peer review of disruptive innovations, unethical behavior can sometimes outweigh ethical conduct. Interestingly, it's often the minority of ethical individuals who play a pivotal role in facilitating the success of disruptive innovations, while mainstream media tends to overlook or even indulgence instances of academic misconduct within peer review.
Scholarly journals are categorized into tiers, resulting in the paradoxical situation where subpar articles in prestigious journals are sometimes celebrated as groundbreaking. Widespread promotional strategies and advertisements often overshadow genuinely innovative work. Science has evolved into a profession, taking on the appearance of a scholarly game, encouraged by academic authorities. Eliminating journal rankings and promotional mechanisms could potentially restore the authentic scientific spirit of earlier eras, allowing valuable contributions to receive the recognition they deserve.
Broad consensus seldom fosters innovation, and following popular trends rarely nurtures creativity. Authentic innovation thrives in specialized domains, where even highly cited papers may lack genuine novelty.
Archived Board
The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationPublish scientific posters with Peeref
Peeref publishes scientific posters from all research disciplines. Our Diamond Open Access policy means free access to content and no publication fees for authors.
Learn More