Summary
Scientific research always carries some risks that may concern the ethical side of conducting an experiment. Hence, peer review is no exception and can be subjected to similar issues. It is important to note that ethics is the basis of any academic work and must be strictly observed under any conditions. Its violation can have many negative consequences not only for the direct participants of the experiment but for the researchers themselves. An ethical violation is a violation of the moral code of the study (Fisher, 2021). Therefore, this case study is an example of what ethical violations can arise in the peer review system. The work was based on such an instance as bias on the part of the researcher. In addition, at the end of this scientific work, questions on understanding and proposed solutions to the problems presented in the case study will be presented.
Violation of the objectivity of persons who conduct an experiment during peer review is a relatively common ethical violation. At the same time, this aspect is one of the fundamental rules of scientific work. This is because authors and researchers should be free of any prejudice against the nationality, culture, gender, or point of view of other authors. Subjectivism during peer review is a significant obstacle to the process of data collection and interpretation and may deprive the study of the opportunity to obtain the most valuable data.
Case Study
John Smith and his partner Tom Johnson decided to conduct a study on how the use of case studies can affect the process of assimilation of the information provided by students. Peer review was chosen as the primary form of academic work as it provides an opportunity to obtain the most reliable information as it is based on evidence-based data. Henceforth, the authors decided to divide the responsibilities and came to the agreement that everyone should work out as many articles as possible in a week. After this time, Smith and Johnson were supposed to meet and discuss the results they gathered.
When discussing the collected data, it turned out that Smith analyzed only ten sources, while Johnson managed to study more than twenty articles. Therefore, such a difference in the work done surprised Johnson, and he decided to ask a colleague what this lag in the collected material could be related to. It turned out that Smith was very subjective about conducting his part in peer review. This aspect was manifested in the fact that the man did not choose articles that contradicted his opinion. Therefore, it turned out that the researcher supported a particular point of view and refused to consider any others. Consequently, Smith believed that case studies could only complicate the learning process and analyzed only those scientific papers that supported this opinion. Thus, this example shows how a subjective attitude in the peer review system can slow down the work and affect the information necessary for its implementation.
Questions
- What is a violation of ethics in the peer review system?
- What problem did researchers John Smith and Tom Johnson face when conducting a peer review on the topic “The impact of case studies on the learning process and the perception of information by students”?
- How can the problem presented in this case study be solved?
Reference
Fisher, C. B. (2021). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Sage Publications.