Literature DB >> 24131903

The ethics of peer review in bioethics.

David Wendler1, Franklin Miller1.   

Abstract

A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Publication Ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24131903      PMCID: PMC4155015          DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101364

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  26 in total

1.  'Peer review' culture.

Authors:  M Atkinson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 2.  Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tom Jefferson; Philip Alderson; Elizabeth Wager; Frank Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process.

Authors:  Jerry Suls; René Martin
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-01

4.  A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters.

Authors:  Robert Hoffmann
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 38.330

5.  What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Nick Black; Stephen Evans; Fiona Godlee; Lyda Osorio; Richard Smith
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

Authors:  N Black; S van Rooyen; F Godlee; R Smith; S Evans
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

Authors:  A C Justice; M K Cho; M A Winker; J A Berlin; D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.

Authors:  Travis I Lovejoy; Tracey A Revenson; Christopher R France
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2011-08

9.  Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Susan van Rooyen; Tony Delamothe; Stephen J W Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-11-16

10.  The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.

Authors:  Michael L Callaham; John Tercier
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.