David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310 (2008)
This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review.
|Keywords||Journal peer review Ethics Bias Reform|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore (forthcoming). Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-20.
Boris Kotchoubey, Sarah Bütof & Ranganatha Sitaram (2015). Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):829-835.
Similar books and articles
Tim Barnett, Ken Bass & Gene Brown (1996). Religiosity, Ethical Ideology, and Intentions to Report a Peer's Wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (11):1161 - 1174.
Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little (2011). Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Ronald N. Kostoff (1997). The Principles and Practices of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Leigh Turner (2003). Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
J. Angelo Corlett (2005). Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review. Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Susan Haack (2007). Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3).
Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher (1997). Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
J. Scott Armstrong (1997). Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Arthur E. Stamps (1997). Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #257,484 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #354,176 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?