An Improved Peer-Review System to Compensate for Scientific Misconduct in Health-Sensitive Topics.

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Alessandro Rovetta, Rossana Garavaglia, Alessandro Vitale, Ettore Meccia, Behailu Terefe Tesfaye, Paolo Mezzana, Vincenzo Accurso
{"title":"An Improved Peer-Review System to Compensate for Scientific Misconduct in Health-Sensitive Topics.","authors":"Alessandro Rovetta, Rossana Garavaglia, Alessandro Vitale, Ettore Meccia, Behailu Terefe Tesfaye, Paolo Mezzana, Vincenzo Accurso","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2023.1605601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In December 2021, one of the authors of the present paper (AR) took part in the peer review of the paper “Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated virus particle vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, BIV1CovIran: findings from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase I and II clinical trials among healthy adults” for the BMJ Open [1, 2]. The manuscript described clinical phases I and II of the COVID-19 vaccine BIV1-CovIran by Shifa Pharmed Industrial Group. The article was accepted for publication in March 2021 after three review rounds, with a total of six reviewers involved. On May 2022, AR received an email from Yeganeh Torbati, a Washington Post reporter who was investigating the development of BIV1-CovIran. Torbati asked AR for a general opinion about the data presented in the above article. AR replied that no serious anomalies were highlighted, although he specified that the peer review process was too superficial to guarantee complete integrity. Subsequently, through an article published in the Washington Post in August 2022, Torbati disclosed serious misconduct dynamics [3]. In support of her claims, an official correction was published in the BMJ Open in November 2022, in which the authors were forced to admit various conflicts of interest and the occurrence of vaccine-related adverse effects [1]. The relevant fact is that not even six peer reviewers and one editor have discovered such a hidden scenario. This is not intended to blame the journal or the reviewers but only to denounce that the world of scientific publication is currently subject to easy ethical violations. Although financial relationships can markedly bias biomedical research, marginal importance is given to this aspect [4, 5]. In this regard, this letter proposes a set of practices to counteract some major integrity problems.","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":"44 ","pages":"1605601"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10272364/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2023.1605601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In December 2021, one of the authors of the present paper (AR) took part in the peer review of the paper “Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated virus particle vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, BIV1CovIran: findings from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase I and II clinical trials among healthy adults” for the BMJ Open [1, 2]. The manuscript described clinical phases I and II of the COVID-19 vaccine BIV1-CovIran by Shifa Pharmed Industrial Group. The article was accepted for publication in March 2021 after three review rounds, with a total of six reviewers involved. On May 2022, AR received an email from Yeganeh Torbati, a Washington Post reporter who was investigating the development of BIV1-CovIran. Torbati asked AR for a general opinion about the data presented in the above article. AR replied that no serious anomalies were highlighted, although he specified that the peer review process was too superficial to guarantee complete integrity. Subsequently, through an article published in the Washington Post in August 2022, Torbati disclosed serious misconduct dynamics [3]. In support of her claims, an official correction was published in the BMJ Open in November 2022, in which the authors were forced to admit various conflicts of interest and the occurrence of vaccine-related adverse effects [1]. The relevant fact is that not even six peer reviewers and one editor have discovered such a hidden scenario. This is not intended to blame the journal or the reviewers but only to denounce that the world of scientific publication is currently subject to easy ethical violations. Although financial relationships can markedly bias biomedical research, marginal importance is given to this aspect [4, 5]. In this regard, this letter proposes a set of practices to counteract some major integrity problems.
改进的同行评议制度以补偿健康敏感话题中的科学不端行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Nursing-Community and Home Care
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信