Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188 (2003)

Peer review is an important component of scholarly research. Long a black box whose practical mechanisms were unknown to researchers and readers, peer review is increasingly facing demands for accountability and improvement. Numerous studies address empirical aspects of the peer review process. Much less consideration is typically given to normative dimensions of peer review. This paper considers what authors, editors, reviewers, and readers ought to expect from the peer review process. Integrity in the review process is vital if various parties are to have trust, or faith, in the credibility of peer review mechanisms. Trust in the quality of peer review can increase or diminish in response to numerous factors. Five core elements of peer review are identified. Constitutive elements of scholarly peer review include: fairness in critical analysis of manuscripts; the selection of appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise; identifiable, publicly accountable reviewers; timely reviews, and helpful critical commentary. The F.A.I.T.H. model provides a basis for linking conceptual analysis of the core norms of peer review with empirical research into the adequacy and effectiveness of various processes of peer review. The model is intended to describe core elements of high-quality peer review and suggest what factors can foster or hinder trust in the integrity of peer review
Keywords academic research  accountability  fairness  peer review
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/B:JAET.0000006844.09724.98
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,436
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge University Press.
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Problem of Humiliation in Peer Review.Debra R. Comer & Michael Schwartz - 2014 - Ethics and Education 9 (2):141-156.
The Ethics of Academic Journal Editing.J. Angelo Corlett - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):205-209.
“Peer Review is Melting Our Glaciers”: What Led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to Go Astray?Laszlo Kosolosky - 2015 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 46 (2):351-366.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
56 ( #204,972 of 2,520,411 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #270,555 of 2,520,411 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes