Theoria 87 (3):713-728 (2021)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
It is a common practice for authors of an academic work to thank the anonymous reviewers at the journal that is publishing it. Allegedly, scholars thank the reviewers because their comments improved the paper and thanking them is a proper way to show gratitude to them. Yet often, a paper that is eventually accepted by one journal is first rejected by other journals, and even though those journals’ reviewers also supply comments that improve the quality of the work, those reviewers are not customarily thanked. We contacted prominent scholars in bioethics and philosophy of medicine and asked whether thanking such reviewers would be a welcome trend. Having received responses from 107 scholars, we discuss the suggested proposal in light of both philosophical argument and the results of this survey. We argue that when an author’s work is published, the author should thank the reviewers whose comments improved the paper regardless of whether those reviewers’ journals rejected or accepted the work. That is because scholars should show gratitude to those who deserve it, and those whose comments improved the paper deserve gratitude. We also consider objections against this practice raised by scholars and show why they are not entirely persuasive.
|
Keywords | academic ethics acknowledgements bioethics gratitude publishing research ethics |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1111/theo.12310 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Hostage Authorship and the Problem of Dirty Hands.William Bülow & Gert Helgesson - 2018 - Research Ethics 14 (1):1-9.
III—Gratefulness and Gratitude.A. D. M. Walker - 1981 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81 (1):39-56.
Responding to Devious Demands for Co-Authorship: A Rejoinder to Bülow and Helgesson’s ‘Dirty Hands’ Justification.Bor Luen Tang - 2018 - Research Ethics 14 (4):1-7.
View all 12 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian H. Kerridge, Stacy M. Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Ethics of Field Research: Do Journals Set the Standard?Helene Marsh & Carole M. Eros - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):375-382.
Ethics in Peer Review of Academic Journal Articles as Perceived by Authors in the Educational Sciences.Päivi Atjonen - 2018 - Journal of Academic Ethics 16 (4):359-376.
Peer Review System: A Golden Standard for Publications Process.Shamima Parvin Lasker - 2018 - Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 9 (1):13-23.
Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.Jovan Shopovski, Cezary Bolek & Monika Bolek - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (2):709-726.
Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study.Boris Kotchoubey, Sarah Bütof & Ranganatha Sitaram - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4):829-835.
Business Ethics Journal Rankings as Perceived by Business Ethics Scholars.Chad Albrecht, Jeffery A. Thompson, Jeffrey L. Hoopes & Pablo Rodrigo - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 95 (2):227-237.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Peer Reviewers Can Meet Journals’ Criteria for Authorship.Thomas Erren, Michael Erren & David Shaw - 2013 - British Medical Journal 346:f166.
Journals Can Persuade Authors to Learn Publishing’s Ethics.Marzieh Maghrouni, Omid Mahian & Somchai Wongwises - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (2):631-633.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Professor Robert H. Fletcher & Professor Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Empirical Research in Bioethical Journals. A Quantitative Analysis.P. Borry - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (4):240-245.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-03-05
Total views
92 ( #128,437 of 2,519,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #22,782 of 2,519,863 )
2021-03-05
Total views
92 ( #128,437 of 2,519,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #22,782 of 2,519,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads