What We Owe the Author: rethinking editorial peer review

Nursing Ethics 5 (5):451-457 (1998)

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

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,855

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-31

Downloads
16 (#671,952)

6 months
1 (#386,031)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

The Ethics of Peer Review in Bioethics.David Wendler & Franklin Miller - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10):697-701.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
‘Peer Review’ Culture.Malcolm Atkinson - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):193-204.