Responses

PDF
Fake peer review - too good to be true
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Fake peer review: many faces

    Fake peer review: the many faces
    Viroj Wiwanitkit1
    1. Honorary Professor, Dr Dy Patil University, Pune Inida
    Email: wviroj@yahoo.com

    I read the recent publication by Cheung BMY with a great interest [1]. In fact, this problem is not uncommon and can be seen elsewhere.

    Reviews that seem overtly positive can be a clue for suspicious fake reviewing. It is the role of the journal editor to select the reviewer and consider the quality of the review. The fake reviewing might be by a non-existent (totally fake) person or a disguised reviewer. Sometimes, it can be a totally biased reviewer who is recommended by the submitting author.

    In addition, a similar problem can also be seen in academic presentations, proposal decisions, funding decisions, as well as academic position appointment decisions. In some underdeveloped countries, it is surprising that non-scientific reviewers can act as academic reviewers when academic work is under consideration. This reflects a poor standard and should be considered as an unacceptable misconduct.

    conflict of interest
    None

    References
    1. Cheung BMY. Fake peer review - too good to be true. Postgrad Med J. 2017 Jun 7. pii: postgradmedj-2016-134506.
    Conflict of Interest
    None declared

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.