Why be my colleague’s keeper? Moral justifications for peer review

Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):531-540 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Justifying ethical practices is no easy task. This paper considers moral justifications for peer review so as to persuade even the sceptical individualist. Two avenues provide a foundation for that justification: self-interest and social contract theory. A wider notion of “interest” permits the self-interest approach to justify not only submitting one’s own work to peer review but also removing oneself momentarily from the production of primary knowledge to serve as a rigorous, independent, and honest referee. The contract approach offers a non-selfish alternative and relies on four types of binding social contracts: those implicit in accepting funds, those implicit in asserted professional status, those to contribute what is of most value to society, and those to defend the ideals of the Academy. Efforts to restore respect for rigorous, independent, honest peer review should begin in earnest



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles


Added to PP

45 (#354,374)

6 months
9 (#312,765)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The elements of moral philosophy.James Rachels & Stuart Rachels - 2015 - [Dubuque]: McGraw-Hill Education. Edited by James Rachels.
Philosophy of Biology.Elliott Sober - 1993 - Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Philosophy of Biology.Elliott Sober - 1993 - Boulder, Colo.: Routledge.

View all 9 references / Add more references