SCCM Reviewer Academy. The next module focuses on special topics associated with the peer review process. Please note the relevant disclosures. Besides the content and logistics of the review, there are topics that merit discussion. The objectives of this module are to explore the concepts of research misconduct and academic integrity and show how this applies to research, scientific writing, and publication. To highlight and create awareness of the potential inherent or implicit biases and prejudice in scientific manuscripts. To understand the risk of predatory publishers and to highlight clues to identify such potentially predatory journals. Journal reviewers have the responsibility not only to evaluate the scientific validity of the manuscript, but also to identify any potential research misconduct, breaches of integrity, and both inherent and explicit bias. Reviewers should communicate any potential concerns to either the associate editor or EIC. Upholding the tenets of academic integrity is important at all times. These tenets include honesty, accuracy, respect, fairness, and responsibility. Publishing research in academic journals is challenging and highly competitive. Researchers may be tempted to commit ethical transgressions or violations such as inappropriate authorship, submitting duplicate publications, withholding undesirable research results, and failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest, including potential personal. The most serious violations include flagrant misconduct, such as plagiarism and falsification, or fabrication of research findings. Being aware of potential transgressions is paramount to the review process. The culture of biomedical science is based on trust, and end-users of research rely on scientists' truthfulness and integrity to inform safe and effective clinical practice. Appropriate authorship is an important consideration for academic integrity and can have professional, academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship implies inclusion, responsibility, and accountability for the published work. Many journals now request that the contributions of each named author are clearly stated, following the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE, criteria. Guest or gift authorships confer undeserved benefit, whilst also holding the person accountable for work in which they did not have a substantial part. The integrity of the work is also impacted when deserving researchers are omitted from the authorship, for example, when senior faculty take credit for junior faculty's work. There may also be discriminatory exclusion of deserving authors based on cultural, gender, professional discipline, or other biases. In order to qualify as a named author of a publication, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires substantial contribution to the conception or design, or acquisition analysis and or interpretation of data, as well as requiring authors to have contributed to drafts of the written work, and approving the final version to be published. Authors must agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Plagiarism is a serious research misconduct and may include verbatim copying of parts or whole sections of work, paraphrasing another's work or thoughts without appropriate referencing and presenting them as your own, and self-plagiarism, especially with dual or duplicate publications. Duplicate or dual publication refers to data being reported identically or very similarly in more than one publication and is considered blatant scientific misconduct. In dual reporting, data gathered by one research project is separately reported, wholly or in part, in multiple end publications, rather than providing the full story in a single manuscript. This might be acceptable if the work is explicitly labeled as, for example, a secondary analysis. Sometimes, dividing up a large and complex study is appropriate and even necessary. If done, it should be explicitly labeled, as it may lead to the same data being counted multiple times as apparently independent results in aggregate studies. Bias is an inherent part of being human and, as such, can be present in scientific publications. Reviewers should be aware of any explicit, prejudicial, or implicit, subconscious biases in submitted manuscripts. This might be evident in selective or exclusionary recruitment strategies, an inappropriate language, and or definitions for gender, race, and ethnicity, for example. As reviewers, we need to be aware of selective publication, which is also considered a form of research misconduct. This is sometimes perpetuated by journals themselves, which often prioritize positive and significant research findings. People choosing what to publish and what to withhold on this basis impacts on the body of evidence and may result in inappropriate clinical recommendations. In the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of predatory publishers and journals which engage in author-funded publishing of manuscripts with fraudulent, fake, absent, non-transparent, or minimal peer review. Predatory journals use the open access or the author pay model for their own profit, with little regard for science, leading to unethical practice and scientific misconduct. Various manuscripts have brought attention to predatory journals and have outlined techniques to distinguish predatory from reputable journals. Despite this, the number of predatory journals in critical care are likely to grow until there are clearer international policies to prevent and regulate the creation of new open access journals. We strongly recommend that reviewers verify information and perform due diligence before agreeing to participate in the peer review process for any journal. In summary, reviewers should be aware of the risk of major and minor research misconduct in submitted manuscripts, which can affect academic integrity. Any concerns or suspicions should be communicated to a senior editor. Before agreeing to review a manuscript, a reviewer should check the credentials of the journal.

peer review process

research misconduct

academic integrity

biases in scientific manuscripts

potentially predatory journals