Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280 (2011)
AbstractPeer review of manuscripts for biomedical journals has become a subject of intense ethical debate. One of the most contentious issues is whether or not peer review should be anonymous. This study aimed to generate a rich, empirically-grounded understanding of the values held by journal editors and peer reviewers with a view to informing journal policy. Qualitative methods were used to carry out an inductive analysis of biomedical reviewers’ and editors’ values. Data was derived from in-depth, open-ended interviews with journal editors and peer reviewers. Data was “read for” themes relevant to reviewer anonymisation and interactions among editors, reviewers, and authors. Editors and peer reviewers provided three arguments that would support a more open and interactive peer-review process. First, a number of participants emphasised the importance of not only ensuring the scientific quality of published research but also nurturing their colleagues and supporting their communities. Second, many spoke about the ongoing moral responsibilities that reviewers and editors felt toward authors. Finally, participants spoke at length about their enjoyment of social interactions and of the value of collective, rather than isolated, reasoning processes. Whether or not journal editors decide to allow anonymous review , the values of editors and reviewers need to be seriously addressed in codes of publication ethics, in the management of biomedical journals, and in the establishment of journal policies
Similar books and articles
The tragedy of the common reviewers: the peer review process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Promoting F.A.I.T.h. In Peer review: Five core attributes of effective Peer review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Evidence for the effectiveness of Peer review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in Peer review.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
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.
Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process.Jo Ann Carland, James W. Carland & Carroll D. Aby - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):95 - 104.
Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
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.
Ethics of field research: Do journals set the standard?Helene Marsh & Carole M. Eros - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):375-382.
Ethics and the accounting publishing process: Author, reviewer, and editor issues. [REVIEW]Susan C. Borkowski & Mary Jeanne Welsh - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (16):1785-1803.
A comparison of conflict of interest policies at Peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines.Jessica S. Ancker & Annette Flanagin - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2):147-157.
A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
Ethical issues in journal Peer-review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Peer reviewers can meet journals’ criteria for authorship.Thomas Erren, Michael Erren & David Shaw - 2013 - British Medical Journal 346:f166.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again.Bent Flyvbjerg - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.
Shifting Power Relations and the Ethics of Journal Peer Review.Ian Kerridge & Wendy Lipworth - 2011 - Social Epistemology 25 (1):97-121.
Regulation of science by ‘Peer review’.Malcolm Atkinson - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (2):147-158.