- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
A Code of Conduct for Peer Reviewers and Editors
Willamette University Faculty Research Website (2019)
Abstract
In the past few decades, peer review has come to dominate virtually all professionally respectable academic and scientific publications. However, despite its near-universal acceptance, no code of conduct has been developed to which peer reviewers and their editors are encouraged to adhere. This paper proposes such a code of conduct.Author's Profile
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
What We Owe the Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457.
What We Owe The Author: rethinking editorial peer review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-458.
Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
Peer Review — An Insult to the Reader and to Society: Milton's View.Steven James Bartlett - 2017 - Willamette University Faculty Research Website.
Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):293-321.
Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?Aceil Al-Khatib & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):293-321.
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities.Hans-Joachim Backe & Veli-Matti Karhulahti - 2021 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1).
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Review of the Ethics and Etiquettes of Time Management of Manuscript Peer Review. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2014 - Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):333-346.
Analytics
Added to PP
2019-07-04
Downloads
545 (#35,513)
6 months
61 (#89,703)
2019-07-04
Downloads
545 (#35,513)
6 months
61 (#89,703)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
CRITIQUE OF IMPURE REASON: Horizons of Possibility and Meaning.Steven James Bartlett - 2021 - Salem, USA: Studies in Theory and Behavior.
References found in this work
Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health: The Need to Look Elsewhere for Standards of Good Psychological Health.Steven James Bartlett - 2011 - Santa Barbara, CA, USA: Praeger.
The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil.Steven James Bartlett - 2005 - Springfield, IL, USA: Charles C. Thomas.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6686886f5-7g5mb uwo