Peer Review Ghostwriting: Academic Fraud Or A Necessary Evil?
QUIET as it’s kept, the academic publishing sector occasionally falls short of being the pinnacle of professional accountability and integrity. A 2019 study conducted on early-career researchers (otherwise known as ECRs) — who received full anonymity — revealed just how common it is for advisors to have their students, often willingly through the guise of manuscript review training, write their peer reviews for them. Though more than half of the participants admitted to having done it, most of them condemned the practice citing the need for experience as their driving motivator.
Early-career researchers are scholars at undergraduate, graduate or post-graduate level but still within between 8 and 10 years of their official PhD. They are not yet formal experts, or valid peers for all intents and purposes. Therefore advisors should not be exploiting them for free labour.
Though some compare it to plagiarism, is it possible the practice is just as innocent as August Derleth extending Lovecraft’s career after an untimely death? Peer review ghostwriting is ostensibly the practice of invited researchers or field experts taking a research paper that they’ve agreed to review for a journal, using their knowledge in the field, and giving it to the grad students or junior scientists that they should be advising to review, secretly, on their behalf. On completion, the impression given is that the scientist has developed the review on their own. This ritual is neither new nor uncommon in scholarly publishing, with co-author and Biologist Rebeccah Lijek calling it ‘one of the worst kept secrets in academia’ (Akst, 2019).
This differs from the recognised practice of co-reviewing where researchers, junior or otherwise, participate in the co-development of a review paper with the main invited reviewer. It is done openly and all contributors are acknowledged, though not always credited depending on the level of contribution. When performed with the necessary transparency this is seen as a valuable step in scientific research as it contributes to the training of ECRs.
Widely reviled as it is, the underhanded practice continues. The ghostwriting is ‘allowed’ to continue because of such beliefs that reviews should only be done by the invited reviewer without assistance, and that any assistance demonstrates a breach in confidentiality of the paper. It’s also believed there is no strong ethical reason to credit co-authors which results in ECRs not being comfortable with even asking for their deserved co-authorship (McDowell et al., 2019).
Notable excuses ECRs received for not being credited for this ‘ghostwriting’ include being told by their supervisor (the invited reviewer) that they simply forgot to include their name, or it’s part of the ECR’s job description and good practice for their career.
But does this perceivably unethical practice harm anyone so long as the research is being reviewed? According to principal investigator James Sherley, this practice contributes to the erosion of academic integrity. Authors submit their work for peer review with the expectation that they will receive ‘fair, expert, and confidential PEER review by […] qualified member[s] in their field’, a contract that is ultimately nullified when less experienced researchers end up doing the work instead. It has potential to cause harm to the careers of scientist as a result of any poorly informed or deficient reviews (Sherley, 2020).
There’s a consensus on the unfairness of the practice, less so on who is responsible for putting an end to it. Recommendations have been made for journal editors to start codifying mechanisms for disclosing and crediting contributors other than the invited reviewer — a suggestion that has also been brought up in the ever-increasing debate around the compensation of peer reviewers. This would legitimise any contribution by ECRs, no matter how minor.
However, the journals, having already put in place processes for invited reviewers to turn down the invitation and instead nominate another reviewer such as a student or trainee, feel as if the onus is squarely on the senior researcher to act ethically and not violate the contract. They feel it is the responsibility of the higher-learning institutes and their members to plug the hole and maintain academic integrity.
Bibliography
Akst, J. (2019). Half of early-career researchers say they’d participated in the peer review process with their mentors without getting credit. [online] Available at: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/trainees-often-ghostwrite-pis-peer-reviews--survey-66675 [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].
McDowell, G., Knutsen, J., Graham, J. and Oelker, S. (2019). Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332703280_Co-reviewing_and_ghostwriting_by_early_career_researchers_in_the_peer_review_of_manuscripts [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].
Sherley, J. (2020). Opinion: Exorcising Ghostwriting from Peer Review. [online] Available at: https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion--exorcising-ghostwriting-from-peer-review-66940 [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].
Singh Chawla, D. (2019). Junior researchers often ghostwrite peer reviews. [online] Physics Today. Available at: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20190429a/full/ [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].
Vago, M. (2013). Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: 7 fiction authors whose careers were extended by ghostwriters. [online] AV Club. Available at: https://www.avclub.com/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-7-ficti-1798239907.
Willams, S. (2020). Scientists, Publishers Debate Paychecks for Peer Reviewers. [online] Available at: https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/scientists-publishers-debate-paychecks-for-peer-reviewers-68101 [Accessed 12 Feb. 2020].
