ABSTRACT
Although peer review has at least an obligation to report ethical misconduct, it can certainly be argued that in some cases the peer-review process in its current incarnation may encourage limited misconduct or even be unethical itself. For example, it is not unheard of for a reviewer to reject a paper based upon one negative or aberrant data point. The impact that this has on science is that authors become hesitant to report all of their data or, worse yet, to alter their data in order to avoid having their paper rejected because of it. In cases such as these, when a reviewer is being unreasonable in his justi cation for rejecting a paper, the editor must take action and either opt to publish the paper despite the reviewer’s objections or send the paper to an additional reviewer for what would hopefully be a more reasonable review. Do not misunderstand me: I am not blaming peer review for these forms of scienti c misconduct; I am merely arguing its typical modus operandi gives the author reasons to be concerned. It is always the cheater’s fault.
