Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1):275-285 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors’ suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system. An author-suggested peer reviewer choice might also tempt authors to seek reviewers who might be more receptive or sympathetic to the authors’ message or results, and thus favor the outcome of that paper. Authors should thus not be placed in such a potentially ethically compromising situation, especially as a mandatory condition for submission. However, the fact that they do not have an opt-out choice during the submission process—especially when using an online submission system that makes such a suggestion compulsory—may constitute a violation of authors’ rights.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,038

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

The problem of humiliation in peer review.Debra R. Comer & Michael Schwartz - 2014 - Ethics and Education 9 (2):141-156.
Advances in peer review research: an introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Ethics of field research: Do journals set the standard?Helene Marsh & Carole M. Eros - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):375-382.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review.Arthur Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Using a dialectical scientific brief in Peer review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
What Rights Do Authors Have?Aceil Al-Khatib & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (3):947-949.
Publication Ethics: Obligations of authors, peer-reviewers, and editors.G. Van Norman & Stephen Jackson - 2010 - In G. A. van Norman, S. Jackson, S. H. Rosenbaum & S. K. Palmer (eds.), Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology. Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-07

Downloads
33 (#427,819)

6 months
5 (#284,395)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

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.
Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry.Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Vedran Katavić - 2016 - Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe) 6 (3-4).
What Rights Do Authors Have?Aceil Al-Khatib & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (3):947-949.

Add more references