Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Editorial peer reviewers play an important role in shaping the direction of knowledge growth of their discipline. Recent concern over reports of peer review misconduct has led some to advocate the establishment of a code of ethics for peer reviewers. Such a code should include guidelines for the discipline and for society at large, but it should also contain guidelines for the authors whose manuscripts are reviewed. Peer reviewers have a special obligation to show beneficence and fairness or impartiality towards the authors for whom they review. The practical application of these two ethical concepts is discussed.

Keywords

beneficence editorial peer review epistemology ethics impartiality universalizability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rennie D. More peering into peer review . JAMA 1993; 270: 2856-2858 .

Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation . JAMA 1990; 263: 1438-1441 .

Markie PJ. A professor’s duties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield , 1994.

King CR , McCuire B , Longman AJ , Carroll-Johnson RM. Peer review, authorship, ethics, and conflict of interest . Image 1997; 29: 163-166 .

Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review , JAMA 1986; 256: 2391-2392 .

Sharp DW.

What can and should be done to reduce publication bias?

JAMA 1990; 263: 1390-1391 .

Fondiller SH.

Is nursing at risk?

Nurs Healthcare 1994; 15: 142-148 .

Davis M. Codes of ethics, professions, and conflict of interests . Prof Ethics 1992; 1(1-2): 179-195

Beauchamp TL , Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press , 1994.

10.

Brandt R. Morality, utilitarianism and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1992.

11.

Davis M.

Science: after such knowledge what responsibility?

Prof Ethics 1995; 4(1): 49-74 .

12.

Battin MP. Applied professional ethics and organized religion . Prof Ethics 1994; 3(2): 5-15 .

13.

Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions, second edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago , 1970.

14.

Clark AJ. Responsible dissemination of scholarly work . J Neurosci Nurs 1993; 25: 113-117 .

15.

Shrader-Frechette K. Ethics of scientific research. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield , 1994.

16.

Cottingham J. Ethics and impartiality . Philos Stud 1983; 43: 83-99 .

17.

Hare RM. Moral thinking. Oxford: Clarendon Press , 1981.

18.

Potter NT , Timmons M. Introduction. In: Potter NT , Timmons M eds. Morality and universality. Boston, MA: Reidel , 1985: i-xxxii.

19.

Gert B , Culver CM , Clouser KD. Bioethics: a return to fundamentals. New York: Oxford University Press , 1997.

20.

Singer P. How are we to live? Melbourne: Text Publishing , 1993.

What We Owe The Author: rethinking editorial peer review

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References