To What Extent Do Ethics Play A Role of Science?

A scientist obtains a series of experimental results, and submits the work to a journal for publication. In the submission of the work, IT IS ASSUMED that the scientist, the lead author, is intellectually responsible. The work is forwarded by the editor of the journal to other scientists for independent review. And the reviewers MAY have been suggested by the author himself.

The editor MIGHT send it a competitor of the original scientist; and he/she might be the original scientist's ex-colleague, ex-wife/husband, ex-supervisor, or deadly enemy. This should not matter....the reviewers will submit a summary of the work, and will recommend whether or not it is published in the journal.

The comments of the reviewers, GOOD and BAD, will be forwarded back to the scientist, along with a recommendation (or not) for publication in the journal. The reviewers will generally remain anonymous. And most papers in leading scientific journals MUST AND SHOULD undergo this so-called #"peer review"# process.

In this entire process, the good faith of the original scientist, AND the good faith of the reviewers is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ASSUMED. The work may be wrong, or require improvement, or refinement (and this is the reason for review)....but it is assumed to be honest, and also assumed to be the original intellectual property of the researcher. Rarely, does a scientist blackball a fellow scientist when he/she suggests a reviewer...and the editor of the journal might ignore his recommendation.

The post-docs, and graduate students of the reviewing prof. will probably go over the work in detail, and try to find any deficiencies or mistakes. This process of review is an important part of graduate training....how to assess and criticize a paper, and ensure that all the characterizing data and evidence are sufficient.