Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors

被引:86
作者
Resnik, David B. [1 ]
Elmore, Susan A. [2 ]
机构
[1] NIEHS, NIH, Box 12233,Mail Drop CU 03, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] NIEHS, Natl Toxicol Program, NIH, POB 12233, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Peer review; Quality; Fairness; Integrity; Ethics; Reliability; Bias; Editors; Publication; MASKING AUTHOR IDENTITY; RETRACTED ARTICLE. SEE; PUBLICATION BIAS; GENDER BIAS; RECOMMENDATIONS; IMPROVE; MANUSCRIPT; RELIABILITY; FATE;
D O I
10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:169 / 188
页数:20
相关论文
共 85 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1988, Science as a Process
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1974, The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations
[3]  
Armstrong J.S., 1997, SCI ENG ETHICS, V3, P63, DOI DOI 10.1007/S11948-997-0017-3
[4]   Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal - A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Arzteblatt International [J].
Baethge, Christopher ;
Franklin, Jeremy ;
Mertens, Stephan .
PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (05)
[5]   Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals [J].
Baggs, Judith Gedney ;
Broome, Marion E. ;
Dougherty, Molly C. ;
Freda, Margaret C. ;
Kearney, Margaret H. .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2008, 64 (02) :131-138
[6]   The ups and downs of peer review [J].
Benos, Dale J. ;
Bashari, Edlira ;
Chaves, Jose M. ;
Gaggar, Amit ;
Kapoor, Niren ;
LaFrance, Martin ;
Mans, Robert ;
Mayhew, David ;
McGowan, Sara ;
Polter, Abigail ;
Qadri, Yawar ;
Sarfare, Shanta ;
Schultz, Kevin ;
Splittgerber, Ryan ;
Stephenson, Jason ;
Tower, Cristy ;
Walton, R. Grace ;
Zotov, Alexander .
ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2007, 31 (02) :145-152
[7]   Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Mutz, Ruediger ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2007, 1 (03) :226-238
[8]   A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Mutz, Ruediger ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
PLOS ONE, 2010, 5 (12)
[9]   To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review [J].
Borsuk, Robyn M. ;
Aarssen, Lonnie W. ;
Budden, Amber E. ;
Koricheva, Julia ;
Leimu, Roosa ;
Tregenza, Tom ;
Lortie, Christopher J. .
BIOSCIENCE, 2009, 59 (11) :985-989
[10]   Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors [J].
Budden, Amber E. ;
Tregenza, Tom ;
Aarssen, Lonnie W. ;
Koricheva, Julia ;
Leimu, Roosa ;
Lortie, Christopher J. .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2008, 23 (01) :4-6