Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Epistemology and Ethics of Journal Reviewing: A Second Look

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cheek, J. (2006). What’s in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qualitative Health Research, 16, 423–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rennie, D. R. (2003). Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In F. Godlee, & T. Jefferson (Eds.) Peer review in health sciences (pp. 1–13). London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Komesaroff, P. A., Kerridge, I., & Jordens, C., (Writing group). (2008). Journal of bioethical inquiry reviewing policy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(1).

  4. Callaham, M. (2003). The evaluation and training of peer reviewers. In F. Godlee, & T. Jefferson (Eds.) Peer review in health sciences (pp. 164–82). London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., Davidoff, F. (2003). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Db Syst Rev Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000016. DOI 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.

  7. Spier, R. E. (2002). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 99–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bingham, C. (2003). Peer review on the internet: Are there faster, fairer, more effective methods of peer review? In F. Godlee, & T. Jefferson (Eds.) Peer review in health sciences (pp. 277–96). London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baez, B. (2002). Confidentiality and peer review: The paradox of secrecy in academe. Review of Higher Education, 25, 163–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA, 287, 2762–2765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ethics in Medicine and Society, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Paul A. Komesaroff

  2. Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia

    Ian Kerridge & Wendy Lipworth

Authors
  1. Paul A. Komesaroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Kerridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendy Lipworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul A. Komesaroff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Komesaroff, P.A., Kerridge, I. & Lipworth, W. The Epistemology and Ethics of Journal Reviewing: A Second Look. Bioethical Inquiry 5, 3–6 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9093-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9093-6

Search

Navigation