Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Trustworthiness of Science in Debate: Challenges, Responses, and Implications.Maria Develaki - 2022 - Science & Education 31 (5):1181-1208.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evaluation of Research(Ers) and its Threat to Epistemic Pluralisms.Marco Viola - 2017 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 13 (2):55-78.
    While some form of evaluation has always been employed in science (e.g. peer review, hiring), formal systems of evaluation of research and researchers have recently come to play a more prominent role in many countries because of the adoption of new models of governance. According to such models, the quality of the output of both researchers and their institutions is measured, and issues such as eligibility for tenure or the allocation of public funding to research institutions crucially depends on the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Structural causes of citation gaps.Hannah Rubin - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (7):2323-2345.
    The social identity of a researcher can affect their position in a community, as well as the uptake of their ideas. In many fields, members of underrepresented or minority groups are less likely to be cited, leading to citation gaps. Though this empirical phenomenon has been well-studied, empirical work generally does not provide insight into the causes of citation gaps. I will argue, using mathematical models, that citation gaps are likely due in part to the structure of academic communities. The (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge.Helen Longino - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons From the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study.David B. Resnik - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):621-633.
    In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors’ consent (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review.David Pontille & Didier Torny - 2015 - Human Studies 38 (1):57-79.
    Born in the 17th century, journal peer review is an extremely diverse technology, constantly torn between two often incompatible goals: the validation of manuscripts conceived as a collective industrial-like reproducible process performed to assert scientific statements, and the dissemination of articles considered as a means to spur scientific discussion, raising controversies, and civically challenging a state of knowledge. Such a situation is particularly conducive to clarifying the processes of valuation and evaluation in journal peer review. In this article, such processes (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.David B. Resnik & Susan A. Elmore - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-188.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Jury Theorems for Peer Review.Marcus Arvan, Liam Kofi Bright & Remco Heesen - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
    Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic research. Usually journals carry this out. However, parts of maths and physics appear to have a parallel, crowd-sourced model of peer review, where papers are posted on the arXiv to be publicly discussed. In this paper we argue that crowd-sourced peer review is likely to do better than journal-solicited peer review at sorting papers by quality. Our argument rests on two key claims. First, crowd-sourced peer (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
    Psychometrically oriented researchers construe low inter-rater reliability measures for expert peer reviewers as damning for the practice of peer review. I argue that this perspective overlooks different forms of normatively appropriate disagreement among reviewers. Of special interest are Kuhnian questions about the extent to which variance in reviewer ratings can be accounted for by normatively appropriate disagreements about how to interpret and apply evaluative criteria within disciplines during times of normal science. Until these empirical-cum-philosophical analyses are done, it will remain (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Why Not Open the Black Box of Journal Editing in Philosophy? Make Peer Reviews of Published Papers Available.Caroline Schaffalitzky de Muckadell & Esben Nedenskov Petersen - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (3):245-257.
    Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review is indispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggests that such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice that reviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when the final version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages of transparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstacles to this suggestion, the article argues that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges.Mattia Andreoletti - 2021 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (3):135-151.
    Nowadays, almost everyone seems to agree that science is facing an epistemological crisis – namely the replicability crisis – and that we need to take action. But as to precisely what to do or how...
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant?Serge P. J. M. Horbach & Willem Halffman - 2020 - Minerva 58 (2):139-161.
    Peer review of journal submissions has become one of the most important pillars of quality management in academic publishing. Because of growing concerns with the quality and effectiveness of the system, a host of enthusiastic innovators has proposed and experimented with new procedures and technologies. However, little is known about whether these innovations manage to convince other journal editors. This paper will address open questions regarding the implementation of new review procedures, the occurrence rate of various peer review procedures and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies Via Simulation.Jia Zhu, Gabriel Fung, Wai Hung Wong, Zhixu Li & Chuanhua Xu - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1073-1094.
    In the academic world, peer review is one of the major processes in evaluating a scholars contribution. In this study, we are interested in quantifying the merits of different policies in a peer review process, such as single-blind review, double-blind review, and obtaining authors feedback. Currently, insufficient work has been undertaken to evaluate the benefits of different peer review policies. One of the major reasons for this situation is the inability to conduct any empirical study because data are presently unavailable. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Plea for Minimally Biased Naturalistic Philosophy.Andrea Polonioli - 2019 - Synthese 196 (9):3841-3867.
    Naturalistic philosophers rely on literature search and review in a number of ways and for different purposes. Yet this article shows how processes of literature search and review are likely to be affected by widespread and systematic biases. A solution to this problem is offered here. Whilst the tradition of systematic reviews of literature from scientific disciplines has been neglected in philosophy, systematic reviews are important tools that minimize bias in literature search and review and allow for greater reproducibility and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commercial Interests, Agenda Setting, and the Epistemic Trustworthiness of Nutrition Science.Saana Jukola - 2019 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 10):2629-2646.
    The trustworthiness of nutrition science has been questioned recently. According to the critics, the food industry has corrupted scientists in the field. I argue that the worries that commercialization threatens the epistemic trustworthiness of nutrition science are indeed well-founded. However, it is problematic that the discussion has revolved around how funding can threaten the integrity of researchers and the methodological quality of the studies. By extending Wilholt’s :233–253, 2013) account of epistemic trustworthiness, I argue that when assessing the epistemic trustworthiness (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Impact of Alumni Connections on Peer Review Ratings and Selection Success Rate in National Research.Dong-Seong Han, Gil-Mo Kang, Soogwan Doh & Duckhee Jang - 2017 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 42 (1):116-143.
    This study seeks to examine the impact of alumni connections between the evaluators and evaluatees on the results of peer review ratings for the Korean national R&D project and selection success rate. Specifically, this study analyzed the evaluation results of 8,402 research proposal entries submitted between 2007 and 2011 for the “general researchers support project,” all in the Natural Science and Engineering areas and sponsored by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Each proposal entry was evaluated by three evaluators, and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965.Pierpaolo Dondio, Didier Torny, Flaminio Squazzoni & Aileen Fyfe - 2020 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 45 (3):405-429.
    This article examines the evolution of peer review and the modern editorial processes of scholarly journals by analyzing a novel data set derived from the Royal Society’s archives and covering 1865-1965, that is, the historical period in which refereeing became firmly established. Our analysis reveals how the Royal Society’s editorial processes coped with both an increasing reliance on refereeing and a growth in submissions, while maintaining collective responsibility and minimizing research waste. By engaging more of its fellows in editorial activity, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Power of Peer Review on Transdisciplinary Discovery.Elina I. Mäkinen - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (6):1020-1047.
    This study examines the tension between the academic evaluation system and the development of unconventional research agendas. While scholars have studied the evaluation of research that crosses disciplinary boundaries from the perspective of peer reviewers, they have paid comparatively little attention to the experiences of the performers of unconventional science. This study asks how researchers develop unconventional research agendas to address a long-standing health problem and, in the process, make sense of the actions of a site visit committee organized to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Ex Ante Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Research Projects: A Literature Review.M. Ángeles Oviedo-García - 2016 - Social Science Information 55 (4):568-588.
    Ex ante evaluations have received little attention in the literature, resulting in a scattered set of contributions, despite their potential impact on society at large and on the academic careers of the members of research teams proposing interdisciplinary projects. Firstly, a review of the existing literature on the evaluation of interdisciplinary research proposals is presented. Then, two alternatives to the traditional peer-review process are described in the context of interdisciplinary research. The conclusions are of potential use both to academics involved (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Parapsychological Phenomena Examples of Generalized Nonlocal Correlations – A Theoretical Framework.Harald Walach - 2014 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 28 (4).
    Scientific facts are constituted as consensus about observable phenomena against the background of an accepted, or at least plausible, theory. Empirical data without a theoretical framework are at best curiosities and anomalies, at worst they are neglected. The problem of parapsychological research since its inception with the foundation of the Society of Psychical Research in 1882 was that no sound theoretical basis existed. On the contrary, the proponents of the SPR often indulged in a theoretical model that ran contrary to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Should We Fund Research Randomly? An Epistemological Criticism of the Lottery Model as an Alternative to Peer-Review for the Funding of Science.Baptiste Bedessem - forthcoming - Research Evaluation.
    The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of scholars as an alternative to peer-review. This lottery scheme draws on the lack of efficiency and of robustness of the peer-review based evaluation to argue that the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Psa 2018.Philsci-Archive -Preprint Volume- - unknown
    These preprints were automatically compiled into a PDF from the collection of papers deposited in PhilSci-Archive in conjunction with the PSA 2018.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Pluralism and Peer Review in Philosophy.J. Katzav & K. Vaesen - 2017 - Philosophers' Imprint 17.
    Recently, mainstream philosophy journals have tended to implement more and more stringent forms of peer review, probably in an attempt to prevent editorial decisions that are based on factors other than quality. Against this trend, we propose that journals should relax their standards of acceptance, as well as be less restrictive about whom is to decide what is admitted into the debate. We start by arguing, partly on the basis of the history of peer review in the journal Mind, that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Can the Behavioral Sciences Self-Correct? A Social Epistemic Study.Felipe Romero - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 60:55-69.
    Advocates of the self-corrective thesis argue that scientific method will refute false theories and find closer approximations to the truth in the long run. I discuss a contemporary interpretation of this thesis in terms of frequentist statistics in the context of the behavioral sciences. First, I identify experimental replications and systematic aggregation of evidence (meta-analysis) as the self-corrective mechanism. Then, I present a computer simulation study of scientific communities that implement this mechanism to argue that frequentist statistics may converge upon (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • On the Conditions for Objectivity : How to Avoid Bias in Socially Relevant Research.Saana Jukola - unknown
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A Plea for Minimally Biased Empirical Philosophy.Andrea Polonioli - unknown
    Naturalistic philosophers rely on literature search and review in a number of ways and for different purposes. Yet this article shows how processes of literature search and review are likely to be affected by widespread and systematic biases. A solution to this problem is offered here. Whilst the tradition of systematic reviews of literature from scientific disciplines has been neglected in philosophy, systematic reviews are important tools that minimize bias in literature search and review and allow for greater reproducibility and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Epistemic Diversity and Editor Decisions: A Statistical Matthew Effect.Remco Heesen & Jan-Willem Romeijn - 2019 - Philosophers' Imprint 19.
    This paper offers a new angle on the common idea that the process of science does not support epistemic diversity. Under minimal assumptions on the nature of journal editing, we prove that editorial procedures, even when impartial in themselves, disadvantage less prominent research programs. This purely statistical bias in article selection further skews existing differences in the success rate and hence attractiveness of research programs, and exacerbates the reputation difference between the programs. After a discussion of the modeling assumptions, the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Unconceived Alternatives and Conservatism in Science: The Impact of Professionalization, Peer-Review, and Big Science.P. Kyle Stanford - 2015 - Synthese:1-18.
    Scientific realists have suggested that changes in our scientific communities over the course of their history have rendered those communities progressively less vulnerable to the problem of unconcieved alternatives over time. I argue in response not only that the most fundamental historical transformations of the scientific enterprise have generated steadily mounting obstacles to revolutionary, transformative, or unorthodox scientific theorizing, but also that we have substantial independent evidence that the institutional apparatus of contemporary scientific inquiry fosters an exceedingly and increasingly theoretically (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
    Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive or neutral. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • The Limited Effectiveness of Prestige as an Intervention on the Health of Medical Journal Publications.Carole J. Lee - 2013 - Episteme 10 (4):387-402.
    Under the traditional system of peer-reviewed publication, the degree of prestige conferred to authors by successful publication is tied to the degree of the intellectual rigor of its peer review process: ambitious scientists do well professionally by doing well epistemically. As a result, we should expect journal editors, in their dual role as epistemic evaluators and prestige-allocators, to have the power to motivate improved author behavior through the tightening of publication requirements. Contrary to this expectation, I will argue that the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Scientific Self-Correction: The Bayesian Way.Felipe Romero & Jan Sprenger - 2020 - Synthese (Suppl 23):1-21.
    The enduring replication crisis in many scientific disciplines casts doubt on the ability of science to estimate effect sizes accurately, and in a wider sense, to self-correct its findings and to produce reliable knowledge. We investigate the merits of a particular countermeasure—replacing null hypothesis significance testing with Bayesian inference—in the context of the meta-analytic aggregation of effect sizes. In particular, we elaborate on the advantages of this Bayesian reform proposal under conditions of publication bias and other methodological imperfections that are (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Scientific Self-Correction: The Bayesian Way.Felipe Romero & Jan Sprenger - 2020 - Synthese 198 (S23):5803-5823.
    The enduring replication crisis in many scientific disciplines casts doubt on the ability of science to estimate effect sizes accurately, and in a wider sense, to self-correct its findings and to produce reliable knowledge. We investigate the merits of a particular countermeasure—replacing null hypothesis significance testing with Bayesian inference—in the context of the meta-analytic aggregation of effect sizes. In particular, we elaborate on the advantages of this Bayesian reform proposal under conditions of publication bias and other methodological imperfections that are (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • New Data on the Linguistic Diversity of Authorship in Philosophy Journals.Chun-Ping Yen & Tzu-Wei Hung - 2019 - Erkenntnis 84 (4):953-974.
    This paper investigates the representation of authors with different linguistic backgrounds in academic publishing. We first review some common rebuttals of concerns about linguistic injustice. We then analyze 1039 authors of philosophy journals, primarily selected from the 2015 Leiter Report. While our data show that Anglophones dominate the output of philosophy papers, this unequal distribution cannot be solely attributed to language capacities. We also discover that ethics journals have more Anglophone authors than logic journals and that most authors are affiliated (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Analysis: The Lack of Diversity in Climate-Science Research.Ayesha Tandon - 2021 - Carbon Brief 2021 (10):1-25.
    Publishing research in respected journals, such as Nature or Science, is a key way for academics to share their findings with the scientific community and beyond.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • How Peer-Review Constrains Cognition: On the Frontline in the Knowledge Sector.Stephen J. Cowley - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6.
  • Questionable Research Practices and Credit in Academic Careers.Remco Heesen - unknown
    This paper investigates how the credit incentive to engage in questionable research practices interacts with cumulative advantage, the process whereby high-status academics more easily increase their status than low-status academics. I use a mathematical model to highlight two dynamics that have not yet received much attention. First, due to cumulative advantage, questionable research practices may pay off over the course of an academic career even if they do not appear attractive at the level of individual publications. Second, because of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.J. A. García, Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):265-283.
    This paper shows that, for a large range of parameters, the journal editor prefers to delegate the choice to review the manuscript to the biased referee. If the peer review process is informative and the review reports are costly for the reviewers, even biased referees with extreme scientific preferences may choose to become informed about the manuscript’s quality. On the contrary, if the review process is potentially informative but the reviewer reports are not costly for the referees, the biased reviewer (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • When Journal Editors Play Favorites.Remco Heesen - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (4):831-858.
    Should editors of scientific journals practice triple-anonymous reviewing? I consider two arguments in favor. The first says that insofar as editors’ decisions are affected by information they would not have had under triple-anonymous review, an injustice is committed against certain authors. I show that even well-meaning editors would commit this wrong and I endorse this argument. The second argument says that insofar as editors’ decisions are affected by information they would not have had under triple-anonymous review, it will negatively affect (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A Social Epistemological Inquiry Into Biases in Journal Peer Review.Saana Jukola - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (1):124-148.
    Journal peer review is an essential part of academic practices.1 But how well does it serve its purpose and which factors have an influence on how close it comes to achieving its aims? Peer review has been widely discussed in empirical literature: it has been studied both qualitatively and quantitatively (e.g., by Cole, who in his 1992 book uses data on how grant applications submitted to National Science Foundation were...
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson & Scott R. Glisson - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (2):1-20.
    The primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a multi-methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56–60% of applicants determined the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Scientists’ Conceptions of Good Research Practice.Nora Hangel & Jutta Schickore - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (6):766-791.
    In a recent editorial published in Nature, the journal's editors comment on a new automated software that has been used to check findings in psychology publications. The editors express concern with the way in which the anonymous fact-checkers have proceeded, but at the same time, they underscore the crucial role of peer criticism for scientific progress and insist: "self-correction is at the heart of science." Brief as it is, the editorial showcases that peer criticism and the application of norms of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The Necessity of Commensuration Bias in Grant Peer Review.Remco Heesen - unknown
    Peer reviewers at many funding agencies and scientific journals are asked to score submissions both on individual criteria and overall. The overall scores should be some kind of aggregate of the criteria scores. Carole Lee identifies this as a potential locus for bias to enter the peer review process, which she calls commensuration bias. Here I view the aggregation of scores through the lens of social choice theory. I argue that in many situations, especially when reviewing grant proposals, it is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Limitations to Our Understanding of Peer Review. [REVIEW]Tony Ross-Hellauer & Jonathan P. Tennant - 2020 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1).
    Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Beyond Data Collection: Ethical Issues in Minority Research.Eli Talbert - 2019 - Ethics and Behavior 29 (7):531-546.
    This article examines ethical concerns surrounding research on minority issues. Specifically, it addresses whether researchers have an obligation to consider the impact that minority research can have on vulnerable populations and their own backgrounds before conducting or assessing minority research for publication. The article argues for such an obligation mainly from a consequentialist perspective and then explores possible strategies for assessing and meeting that obligation. Finally, it explores the possible negative secondary effects of those strategies and censorship concerns.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Open Up: A Survey on Open and Non-Anonymized Peer Reviewing.Matthew Cooper, Jonathan P. Tennant, Jonas Löwgren, Niklas Rönnberg & Lonni Besançon - 2020 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Promote Scientific Integrity Via Journal Peer Review Data.Carole J. Lee - 2017 - Science 357 (6348):256-257.
    There is an increasing push by journals to ensure that data and products related to published papers are shared as part of a cultural move to promote transparency, reproducibility, and trust in the scientific literature. Yet few journals commit to evaluating their effectiveness in implementing reporting standards aimed at meeting those goals (1, 2). Similarly, though the vast majority of journals endorse peer review as an approach to ensure trust in the literature, few make their peer review data available to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Coping with the Conflict-of-Interest Pandemic by Listening to and Doubting Everyone, Including Yourself.Lynn Kozlowski - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):591-596.
    In light of the widespread existence of financial and non-financial issues that contribute to the appearance or fact of conflict of interest, it is proposed that conflict of interest should generally be assumed, no matter the source of financial support or the expressed declarations of conflicts and even with respect to one’s own work. No new model is advanced for modification of peer-review processes or for elaboration of author declarations of interest. Researchers should be assessing the quality of published work (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Should Authors Be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1):275-285.
    As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Education Journal Editors’ Perspectives on Self-Plagiarism.Samuel V. Bruton & John R. Rachal - 2015 - Journal of Academic Ethics 13 (1):13-25.
    The perspectives of academic journal editors regarding self-plagiarism were examined by means of an online survey in which 277 editors of education journals participated. Following the survey, a sub-sample of 14 editors were interviewed. A substantial majority of editors were found to be in accord with the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the APA in believing that re-use of long, verbatim passages or tables, figures and images from an author’s previously published work without appropriate citation is unethical, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Revisiting Current Causes of Women's Underrepresentation in Science.Carole J. Lee - forthcoming - In Jennifer Saul Michael Brownstein (ed.), Implicit Bias and Philosophy Volume 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
    On the surface, developing a social psychology of science seems compelling as a way to understand how individual social cognition – in aggregate – contributes towards individual and group behavior within scientific communities (Kitcher, 2002). However, in cases where the functional input-output profile of psychological processes cannot be mapped directly onto the observed behavior of working scientists, it becomes clear that the relationship between psychological claims and normative philosophy of science should be refined. For example, a robust body of social (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations