The limited effectiveness of prestige as an intervention on the health of medical journal publications
Episteme 10 (4):387-402 (2013)
AbstractUnder the traditional system of peer-reviewed publication, the degree of prestige conferred to authors by successful publication is tied to the degree of the intellectual rigor of its peer review process: ambitious scientists do well professionally by doing well epistemically. As a result, we should expect journal editors, in their dual role as epistemic evaluators and prestige-allocators, to have the power to motivate improved author behavior through the tightening of publication requirements. Contrary to this expectation, I will argue that the publication bias literature in academic medicine demonstrates that editor interventions have had limited effectiveness in improving the health of the publication and trial registration record, suggesting that much stronger interventions are needed.
Similar books and articles
Redundant Publication in Biomedical Sciences: Scientific Misconduct or Necessity? [REVIEW]Tom Jefferson - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (2):135-140.
Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Preferential Publication of Editorial Board Members in Medical Specialty Journals.J. Luty, S. M. R. Arokiadass, J. M. Easow & J. R. Anapreddy - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):200-202.
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study.David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies. [REVIEW]Elise Smith & Bryn Williams-Jones - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):199-212.
Some Thoughts About the Requirements for Reviewing Books.David Weissman - 2010 - Metaphilosophy 41 (5):715-716.
Publication Ethics From the Perspective of PhD Students of Health Sciences: A Limited Experience.Berna Arda - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):213-222.
Publication Bias: The Achilles' Heel of Systematic Reviews?Carole J. Torgerson - 2006 - British Journal of Educational Studies 54 (1):89 - 102.
Judging the Scientific and Medical Literature: Some Legal Implications of Changes to Biomedical Research and Publication.Gary Edmond - 2008 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (3):523-561.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
Can the Behavioral Sciences Self-Correct? A Social Epistemic Study.Felipe Romero - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 60:55-69.
The Reference Class Problem for Credit Valuation in Science.Carole J. Lee - 2020 - Philosophy of Science 87 (5):1026-1036.
Collective Responsibility and Fraud in Scientific Communities.Bryce Huebner & Liam Kofi Bright - 2020 - In Saba Bazargan-Forward & Deborah Perron Tollefsen (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Collective Responsibility. Routledge.
References found in this work
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.Helen E. Longino (ed.) - 1990 - Princeton University Press.
The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.Richard Rudner - 1953 - Philosophy of Science 20 (1):1-6.