Scientific ethics

	LETTER

The subsequent letter is in response to the Editorial "Ethics, revisited" that appeared in the Journal of Applied Physiology, volume 91, pages 1911-1912 (November 2001).

To the Editor: I read with great interest the important editorial "Ethics, revisited" (1). It touches on the essence of science and scientific publications. I agree fully with the writer that without the adherence to the principles of ethical behavior, science is threatened.

Other than spelling out the need for honesty in science and scientific publications, the writer extensively outlines the importance peer review has on the quality and scientific merit of publications. He also mentions the importance the APS publication program has in ensuring that only the very best works are distributed to the world community.

I do not dispute the task peer review should have in contributing to the scientific merit of a publication by acting, in a sense, as the "devil's advocate." I also agree with the phrase "the very best work [should be] distributed to the world community." However, above each of us, Demoklates sword is tilting, reminding us to "publish or perish."

This raises questions as to whether it is really only the very best studies that are published, and what role the reviewers and the publication committee play to ensure this. In some instances, studies are sent to a nonexpert for review, who is at best not familiar with update publications. In other cases, studies with no real scientific contribution, which sometimes are redundant and even repetitive, are published just because they are coauthored by a familiar, established scientist. These serious allegations should ring a bell for the place politics has in scientific publications. A telephone call from a scientist to the editor or a fellow reviewer can very simply change the marked box from "reject" to "accept" (remember: publish or perish).

The coin is two sided; it is not only the scientist who should adhere to high ethical principles but also the reviewer, the publication committee, and the section editors who should serve with good faith, thus contributing much more to the enhancement of science.

	REFERENCES

1.   Benos, DJ. Ethics, revisited. J Appl Physiol 91: 1911-1912, 2001[Free Full Text].

Prof. Y. Epstein, Heller Institute of Medical Research Sheba Medical Center Tel Hashomer 52621 Israel E-mail: hlrinst{at}post.tau.ac.il

	REPLY

To the Editor: I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Epstein's assertion that all parties involved in the publication process, i.e., authors, reviewers, and publication committees, have a responsibility to subscribe to the highest ethical standards. In fact, he reminds me that I had planned to write a follow-up editorial addressing the importance of ethical behavior and its appearance for editors and reviewers. I am, however, dismayed by the implicit assumption that the "serious allegations" that Professor Epstein makes are widespread. This is simply not true.

Professor Epstein asks what role the reviewers and publication committees play in peer review. Simply stated, the quality of the review process is directly proportional to the quality of the editors and reviewers. Choosing an editor-in-chief is of great importance for the American Physiological Society (APS). Nominations are solicited worldwide, evaluated thoroughly by the Publications Committee (PC) and Executive Council (president, president-elect, and past president) of APS, and the candidates are interviewed. Once an editor is appointed, it is his or her responsibility to nominate associate editors. Associate editors are also screened by the PC and, if approved, appointed. Once the editors and associate editors are appointed, they assemble at APS headquarters, where the general direction, strategies, and policies of the Journal are collectively delineated. Most importantly, the ethical policies and procedures of the Society are discussed. PC continuously monitors each journal's progress, and all ethical issues are referred to the PC for deliberation.

I can assure you that the great majority of all ethical issues referred to the PC involve author's transgressions/conflicts and not reviewer or editor prejudices. This is not to say that editor or reviewer comments (or behavior) are never hostile. In our experience at APS, most of our editors and reviewers are courteous and constructive. It is certainly true that reviewers are not infallible. However, in these cases, the editors are usually willing to listen to a calm, reasoned response from the authors. No doubt, given certain human predilections, a few scientists "politic" for their papers. However, I am not aware of a single instance in the 15 years that I have been handling manuscripts that a telephone call resulted in a decision change from "reject" to "accept" without further peer review. I urge Professor Epstein, in the case of peer review, not to advocate "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

	FOOTNOTES

10.1152/japplphysiol.01261.2001

Dr. Dale J. Benos, Chairman APS Publications Committee E-mail: benos{at}physiology.uab.edu