On June 27, the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued the "Integrity Reminder on Frequently Asked Questions in Academic Reviews" (hereinafter referred to as "Integrity Reminder"), focusing on academic reviews that have received wide attention, and aiming at 8 types of typical problems that are prone to appear in China. The scientific and technological personnel of the Academy of Sciences reminded.
These 8 reminders include: oppose "cross-border" participation in the review beyond one's own professional ability and fail to abide by the identity of an expert; oppose the behavior of not respecting the academic originality of the reviewee, using review power to plagiarize academic ideas, etc.; oppose perfunctory "name" review ; Oppose the "humanity" review with various solicitations; oppose the discriminatory review of non-academic quality issues; oppose the "Yiyantang" review guided by authoritative status; oppose the illegal disclosure of the reviewer's identity, review content and results, and profit from it; Object to review without avoiding conflict of interest.
The "Integrity Reminder" emphasizes that academic reviewers should cherish academic purity and maintain the independence, purity and impartiality of academic review.
It is reported that this is the sixth consecutive year since 2018 that the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has issued integrity reminders to advocate academic integrity. The previous 5 times were "Integrity Reminders on Common Problems or Mistakes in the Signing of Academic Papers", "Reminders on Observing Scientific Research Ethics in Biomedical Research" and "Integrity Reminders on Common Problems or Mistakes in Original Records of Scientific Research Activities" "Integrity Reminders on Common Problems or Mistakes in Publishing Academic Achievements on Public Media" and "Integrity Reminders on Common Problems in the Science and Technology Award Recommendation Process".
The following is the full text of the "Integrity Reminder":
Integrity reminder about common problems in academic review
Chinese Academy of Sciences Research Ethics Committee
(Published on June 27, 2023)
In order to maintain a good academic atmosphere and scientific research ecology, protect a fair and just peer review environment, ensure the purity and authenticity of academic reviews, improve the responsibility awareness of reviewers, and advocate honesty and trustworthiness in academic reviews, the Office of the Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences According to the integrity management requirements of the whole process of scientific research activities, combined with the typical problems in the current academic evaluation, the following reminders are given to the scientific and technological personnel of our institute:
Reminder 1: Failure to abide by the identity of an expert to "cross-border" participate in the review. Academic reviewers should participate in academic review based on their own professional knowledge and ability, and put forward objective, fair, clear and detailed professional review opinions. Object to participating in academic review or academic consultation beyond one's own professional ability.
Reminder 2: The academic originality of the reviewee is not respected. Academic reviewers should abide by academic norms and research integrity requirements, and protect the originality and academic rights of the reviewed content. Oppose the use of review power to delay review time, plagiarize academic ideas, leak review content, and induce literature citations.
Reminder 3: "Named" comments. Academic reviewers should fulfill their duties and complete the academic review independently in accordance with the requirements of the entrusting party. Oppose perfunctory, or transfer or entrust others to complete the evaluation and issue evaluation opinions in your own name.
Reminder 4: Comments on "human feelings". Academic reviewers should cherish academic purity and maintain the independence, purity and impartiality of academic review. Oppose the acceptance of all kinds of requests and deliberations from the person being reviewed, their related persons, and related units.
Reminder 5: Discriminatory comments. Academic reviewers should review the academic quality of review materials, and treat reviewees of different nationalities, ethnicities, religions, languages, genders, ages, institutions, etc. equally. Oppose any discriminatory review behavior.
Reminder 6: The evaluation process is "one word". Academic reviewers, especially the convener of the review group (team leader, chairman, etc.), should create a democratic atmosphere during the review process to ensure the independence of review experts' speeches. Oppose the use of academic status or authority to guide review results and suppress different opinions.
Reminder 7: Illegally disclose the identity of reviewers, review content and results. During the evaluation process, academic reviewers should not disclose the identity of the reviewers to third parties in violation of regulations, and should not disclose information such as the content, process, and results of the review in violation of regulations. Oppose seeking illegitimate interests by disclosing the identity of reviewers.
Reminder 8: Conflicts of interest are not avoided. Academic reviewers are obliged to inform the entrusting party of their social, economic, and academic relationships that may involve conflicts of interest, and to avoid them as required by the entrusting party. Oppose concealment of potential conflicts of interest to participate in academic review.
(The original title was "The Chinese Academy of Sciences Issues 8 Integrity Reminders, Rejecting the Behaviors of "Cross-Boundary", "Named" and "One-Speaking" in Academic Reviews")