|
1
|
Al-Beltagi M. Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility. World J Methodol 2025; 15:98795. [DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.98795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2024] [Revised: 11/06/2024] [Accepted: 12/02/2024] [Indexed: 03/06/2025] Open
Abstract
The rise of the “fishing reviewer” phenomenon presents a significant threat to the integrity of academic publishing, undermining the credibility of the peer review process and eroding trust in scientific journals. This editorial explores the risk factors contributing to this troubling trend and identifies key indicators to recognize such reviewers. To address this issue, we propose strategies, including enhanced reviewer vetting, comprehensive training, and transparent recognition policies to foster a culture of accountability and ethical conduct in scholarly review. By implementing these measures, we can safeguard the quality and credibility of academic research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed Al-Beltagi
- Department of Pediatric, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31511, Alghrabia, Egypt
- Department of Pediatric, University Medical Center, King Abdulla Medical City, Arabian Gulf University, Manama 26671, Bahrain
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Castillo-Mancilla JR, Erlandson KM, Hecker ER, Komaie G, Shomaker LB, Cicutto L, Mankin G, Maclean P. Outcomes of a Career Development Award (Pre-K) Mock Review Program for Postdoctoral Fellows and Early-Career Faculty. ACADEMIC MEDICINE : JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES 2023; 98:1313-1318. [PMID: 37289813 PMCID: PMC10838138 DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000005293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Securing research funding for early-career investigators remains challenging. The authors present the results of a presubmission career development award (Pre-K) review program for postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. METHOD The Pre-K program is designed to help mentored postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty write successful career development awards by assigning expert reviewers to score each application and provide written and oral critiques before a mock study section. Applicants and mentors attend the review and can ask questions directly to reviewers about their application. Quarterly, annual, and alumni surveys are sent to applicants who participated in the Pre-K program to assess satisfaction, confirm grant submission and status (i.e., funded and unfunded), and understand the long-term career impact of the program. RESULTS A total of 212 applicants (136 [64%] female; 19 [9%] from underrepresented in medicine groups) participated in the program between 2014 and 2021. Outcome data from 194 grants were available. Among these grants, 71 were awarded (37% success rate). Among underrepresented in medicine applicants, 7 of 18 submitted grants were funded (39% success rate). Of 183 Pre-K participants sent the alumni survey, 123 (67%) responded. Academic degrees included 64 PhDs (52%), 46 MDs (37%), and 14 MDs/PhDs (11%). One hundred nine respondents (90%) were employed in an academic institution, and 106 (86%) devoted more than 50% of their time to research. One hundred twelve (91%) reported receipt of an award (87 [78%] federal and 59 [53%] intramural funding), the most common being National Institutes of Health K/Career Development Awards. Pre-K was rated as very useful to their careers by 102 respondents (83%). CONCLUSIONS A Pre-K mock review program can assist early-career investigators in securing funding and launching their research career. Continued investment in the next generation of clinical and translational researchers should remain an institutional priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jose R Castillo-Mancilla
- J.R. Castillo-Mancilla is associate professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Kristine M Erlandson
- K.M. Erlandson is associate professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Emily R Hecker
- E.R. Hecker is evaluation specialist, Evaluation Center, School of Education and Human Development, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
| | - Goldie Komaie
- G. Komaie is senior evaluator, Evaluation Center, School of Education and Human Development, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado
| | - Lauren B Shomaker
- L.B. Shomaker is associate professor, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
| | - Lisa Cicutto
- L. Cicutto is professor of medicine and director of community research, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado, and director, Workforce Development Training Core, Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Galit Mankin
- G. Mankin is administrative lead, Clinical Science Programs, Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Paul Maclean
- P. MacLean is professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Recio-Saucedo A, Crane K, Meadmore K, Fackrell K, Church H, Fraser S, Blatch-Jones A. What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis. Res Integr Peer Rev 2022; 7:2. [PMID: 35246264 PMCID: PMC8894828 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom. METHODS Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding. RESULTS We analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels. CONCLUSIONS Reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandra Recio-Saucedo
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Ksenia Crane
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Katie Meadmore
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Kathryn Fackrell
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Hazel Church
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Simon Fraser
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK
| | - Amanda Blatch-Jones
- Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Doyle JM, Baiocchi MT, Kiernan M. Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0257559. [PMID: 34793439 PMCID: PMC8601543 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Early career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group’s recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission. Methods and findings First-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000–2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications—for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82–3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22–2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications. Conclusions Encouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2–4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Mihoko Doyle
- Division of Clinical Innovation, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Michael T. Baiocchi
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America
| | - Michaela Kiernan
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Johnson MO, Neilands TB, Kegeles SM, Gaffney S, Lightfoot MA. The Architecture of an Internal, Scientific, Presubmission Review Program Designed to Increase the Impact and Success of Grant Proposals and Manuscripts. ACADEMIC MEDICINE : JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES 2020; 95:200-206. [PMID: 31990724 PMCID: PMC7001618 DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000003008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Securing extramural grant funding and publishing in peer-reviewed journals are key indicators of success for many investigators in academic settings. As a result, these expectations are also sources of stress for investigators and trainees considering such careers. As competition over grant funding, costs of conducting research, and diffusion of effort across multiple demands increase, the need to submit high-quality applications and publications is paramount. For over 3 decades, the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, has refined an internal, presubmission, peer review program to improve the quality and potential success of products before external submission. In this article, the rationale and practical elements of the system are detailed, and recent satisfaction reports, grant submission outcomes, and plans for ongoing tracking of the success rates of products reviewed are discussed. The program includes both early-stage concept reviews of ideas in their formative state and full product reviews of near-final drafts. Recent evaluation data indicate high levels of reviewee satisfaction with multiple domains of the process, including scheduling the review sessions, preparedness and expertise of the reviewers, and overall quality of the review. Outcome data from reviews conducted over a recent 12-month period demonstrate subsequent funding of 44% of proposals reviewed through the program, a success rate that surpasses the National Institutes of Health funding success rates for the same time period. Suggestions for the sustainability of the program and for its adoption at other institutions and settings less dependent on extramural funding are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mallory O Johnson
- M.O. Johnson is professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0480-2804. T.B. Neilands is professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7936-9123. S.M. Kegeles is professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4602-2275. S. Gaffney is scientific coordinator, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0615-8039. M.A. Lightfoot is professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5293-9755
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Opipari VP, Lumeng JC, Youmans B, Silverstein F. Mandated Research Peer Review Positively Impacts Research Funding Success Rates for Young Investigators. J Pediatr 2019; 210:3-4. [PMID: 31234988 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.05.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Valerie P Opipari
- Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI.
| | - Julie C Lumeng
- Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Becky Youmans
- Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Faye Silverstein
- Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Krittanawong C, Zhang HJ, Aydar M, Wang Z, Sun T. Crowdfunding for cardiovascular research. Int J Cardiol 2017; 250:268-269. [PMID: 29074042 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.10.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2017] [Revised: 10/04/2017] [Accepted: 10/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
The competition for public cardiovascular research grants has recently increased. Independent researchers are facing increasing competition for public research grant support and ultimately may need to seek alternative funding sources. Crowdfunding, a financing method of raising funds online by pooling together small donations from the online community to support a specific initiative, seems to have significant potential. However, the feasibility of crowdfunding for cardiovascular research remains unknown. Here, we performed exploratory data analysis of the feasibility of online crowdfunding in cardiovascular research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chayakrit Krittanawong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai St. Luke's and Mount Sinai West, New York, NY, USA.
| | - HongJu Janet Zhang
- Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Mehmet Aydar
- Department of Computer Science, Kent State University, OH, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Tao Sun
- Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Lamb D. Nurturing a positive research culture: the Academic Department of Military Nursing perspective. J ROY ARMY MED CORPS 2015; 161 Suppl 1:i6-i9. [PMID: 26400975 DOI: 10.1136/jramc-2015-000542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2015] [Accepted: 08/20/2015] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
The structure and quality of nurse education in the UK has been scrutinised for many decades, culminating in a significant shift from ward-based learning at certificate level to that at diploma or degree level being delivered in higher education institutions. This professionalisation of nursing in the last decade of the 20th century was influenced by major changes in Department of Health policy, which demanded that a sound evidence base must be applied to nursing practice thereby replicating the model of evidence-based medicine. The requirement for care delivery to be evidence based is built on the premise that a continual research programme to investigate, disseminate and implement findings will enhance decision making in the clinical environment, thereby improving standards of care and patient outcomes. However, for this to be achieved there is an organisational responsibility to drive a positive research culture in order to effectively generate new knowledge and expertise. This paper explores the nursing research culture in the NHS and the strategies employed by the Defence Medical Services for supporting its nurses to generate the high-quality evidence that informs best practice.
Collapse
|