Page 52 - Becoming Metric Wise

42 Becoming Metric-Wise

one should review at least two (and probably more) submissions
(Wilson & Lancaster, 2006).
One of the reasons that scientists might decline to review a manuscript
is that there is no reward system for reviewing. The only action taken by
journals to thank referees is the (yearly) publication of a list of reviewers
for the journal. For local (intra-university or intra-departmental) purposes
the number of reviews and the type of journals could suffice to construct
a review indicator. This number could then be incorporated in a local
evaluation system. Wilson and Lancaster (2006) and Rousseau (2006e)
even suggest an international referee factor. Yet, as long as the quality of
the review is not taken into account, we do not see how this could be
realized. Maybe the RQI proposed by van Rooyen et al. (1999) offers a
solution. We feel that, however, reviewing does have some benefits, espe-
cially for younger scientists: reviewers get exposed to manuscripts and
may acquire better writing skills, they come into contact with colleagues
and journal editors, and if the review is not anonymous, reviewing may
foster later collaborations.

3.1.4 Deontology of Authors, Editors,
and Reviewers (De George & Woodward, 1994)

In this subsection, we present some deontological rules to which authors,
reviewers, and editors must adhere. If these rules are violated, trust in the
publication system may disintegrate.
Authors should:
• Submit original work.
• Use correct references (Liang et al., 2014).
• Not submit the same work to two or more journals at the same time.
• Not include information received confidentially e.g., as a referee,
unless, of course, explicit approval has been obtained.
• Have contributed in a substantial way, see also Subsection 2.3.4.
• If an error has been found (by the author or by a colleague) contact
the EIC and take action. This can be withdrawal of submission,
retraction of a published article, submission of a correction or a Letter
to the Editor.
• Most importantly, the integrity of science is the first responsibility of
authors. Feynman (1974), for instance, points out that authors may
not fool themselves, by taking a biased view on their results. They
must include in their manuscript all the information that helps others
to judge the value of their contributions.