Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280 (2011)

Abstract
Peer 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
Keywords Peer review  Social values  Qualitative research  Research ethics  Bioethics: Medical ethics  Research (humans)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11673-011-9312-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,287
External links

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

'Peer Review' Culture.Dr Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
‘Peer Review’ Culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.
Regulation of Science by ‘Peer Review’.Malcolm Atkinson - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (2):147-158.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Editorial.Leigh E. Rich & Michael A. Ashby - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):221-224.
Editorial.Michael A. Ashby & Leigh E. Rich - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):109-111.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
Ethics of Field Research: Do Journals Set the Standard?Helene Marsh & Carole M. Eros - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):375-382.
Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-06-28

Total views
29 ( #333,798 of 2,325,694 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #658,522 of 2,325,694 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes