Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.
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 the...
| Publicado en: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 22; no. 1; pp. 169 - 189 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Feb2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=112358491&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 112358491 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2016 vid: 22 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 112358491 10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5 ppf: 169 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 451KB tig: atl: Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. aug: au: Resnik, David Elmore, Susan affil: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Mail Drop CU 03 Research Triangle Park 27709 USA National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park 27709 USA su: Professional peer review Editors Periodicals Decision making Integrity Ethics sug: subj: Professional peer review Editors Periodicals Decision making Integrity Ethics keyword: Bias Fairness Peer review Publication Quality Reliability ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2016 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|