08 OctNezam Afdhal.

Nezam Afdhal, M article .D., Stefan Zeuzem, M.D., Paul Kwo, M.D., Mario Chojkier, M.D., Norman Gitlin, M.D., Massimo Puoti, M.D., Manuel Romero-Gomez, M.D., Ph.D., Jean-Pierre Zarski, M.D., Ph.D., Kosh Agarwal, M.D., Peter Buggisch, M.D., Graham R. Foster, Ph.D.D., M.B.A., Maria Buti, M.D., Ph.D., Ira M. Jacobson, M.D., G. Mani Subramanian, M.D., Ph.D., Xiao Ding, Ph.D., Hongmei Mo, M.D., Jenny C. Yang, Pharm.D., Phillip S. Pang, M.D., Ph.D., William T. Symonds, Pharm.D., John G. McHutchison, M.D., Andrew J. Muir, M.D., M.H.S., Alessandra Mangia, M.D., and Patrick Marcellin, M.D., Ph.D.

The type of peer-review fraud committed by Moon, Chen, and third-party agencies could work when journals allow or encourage authors to suggest reviewers because of their own submissions. Even though many editors dislike this practice, it is frequently used, for a genuine number of reasons. One is definitely that in specific fields, authors could be best qualified to suggest suitable reviewers for this issue and manuscript in question. Another is definitely that it makes life much easier for editors: finding suitable peer reviewers who are willing to review regularly can be both difficult and time consuming. A third reason may be that journals and publishers are increasingly multinational. During the past, the editor and editorial table of a journal understood both the scientific field it protected and the people employed in it, but it’s extremely difficult to be sufficiently well connected when both editors and submissions come from all over the world.