Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188 (2016)
Authors | |
Abstract |
A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are the linchpin of peer review, since they make decisions that have a significant impact on the process and its outcome. We consider some of the steps editors should take to promote quality, fairness and integrity in different stages of the peer review process and make some recommendations for editorial conduct and decision-making
|
Keywords | Peer review Quality Fairness Integrity Ethics Reliability Bias Editors Publication |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - University of Chicago Press.
Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195.
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.
Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-255.
View all 14 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges.Mattia Andreoletti - 2021 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (3):135-151.
The Problem Is Not Professional Publishing, But the Publish-or-Perish Culture.Gonzalo Génova & José Luis de la Vara - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (2):617-619.
How Are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6):1801-1804.
DNA Patents and Human Dignity.David B. Resnik - 2001 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 29 (2):152-165.
Is Biomedical Research Protected From Predatory Reviewers?Aceil Al-Khatib & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):293-321.
View all 10 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
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.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
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.
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.
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.
Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195.
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.
Reviewer Index: A New Proposal of Rewarding the Reviewer.S. G. Kachewar & S. B. Sankaye - 2013 - Mens Sana Monographs 11 (1):274.
What We Owe the Author: Rethinking Editorial Peer Review.N. J. Crigger - 1998 - Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Professor Robert H. Fletcher & Professor Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
How Editors Decide. Oral Communication in Journal Peer Review.Stefan Hirschauer - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):37-55.
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher Be Expected to Contribute?José G. B. Derraik - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):825-828.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2015-01-30
Total views
39 ( #293,054 of 2,519,317 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,861 of 2,519,317 )
2015-01-30
Total views
39 ( #293,054 of 2,519,317 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,861 of 2,519,317 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads