Dishonest Conformity In Peer Review

Scientific honesty in scientific publication is critical for scientific advancement, but dishonesty is commonly and increasingly observed in the forms of misconduct and other questionable practices. Focusing on dishonest conformity in peer review, in which authors reluctantly obey referees’ instructions in order to have their papers accepted even if the instructions contradict the author’s scientific belief, this study aims to illustrate the nature of this specific form of dishonesty and examine the determinants of dishonesty. Drawing on survey data of Japanese life scientists, this study shows that the conflict between authors and referees in peer review is quite common and that a majority of scientists decide to follow referees’ instructions rather than to rebut them. The results suggest that dishonest conformity occurs more often in basic biology than in medicine and agricultural sciences, when the corresponding author is under stronger scientific competition, if the author is an associate professor rather than a full professor, if the author has foreign research experience, and when the paper is submitted to low-impact journals rather than to medium-impact journals.