Case title: | Confidentiality and collegiality, peer review |
RCR: peer review, conflict of interests Principle of practice: community of science, research reproducibility Virtue: accountability and altruism | |
Learning objectives |
|
Synopsis | Students are placed in the scenario as a finishing graduate student in the lab of a frequent journal reviewer. PI asks student to review three manuscripts that the PI is unable to complete in a timely manner. Two are not challenging because the student is familiar with the labs and their work; the third paper is outside the student's expertise, so he asks a postdoc expert for help. The case is used to expose policies, limitations and roles for appropriate manuscript review. Session 2 builds on principles of peer review by placing the students as a senior postdoctoral fellow in a lab invited to be an ad hoc reviewer for a study section. Short vignettes describe some tensions of peer review. Proposal 1: The reviewer knows the applicant and has negative results of their own that show the applicant's experiments are conceptually flawed. Proposal 2: Gives the reviewer a great idea to begin new experiments of his own. Proposal 3: The applicant references preliminary data using a reagent the reviewer's lab developed but the reviewer is unsure how the applicant could have got ten those reagents. Proposal 4: A less than meritorious application from a minority applicant. Proposal 5: Poses whether to reveal insight into the review results to the applicant, a close colleague. |
Moral reflection | Moral motivation and commitment Students are asked to identify best practices of peer review and those actions that are outside the ethical bounds of the profession of scientists. |
Assignment | Students develop the following:
|
PI, principal investigator; RCR, responsible conduct of research.