Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 14 October 2013
- Published on: 14 October 2013
- Published on: 14 October 2013Response to KochShow More
Mr Koch is mistaken about the question of whether the Report by the Royal Society of Canada expert panel that I chaired was peer reviewed. It was extensively externally peer reviewed.
As to the journal's purported refusal to publish criticisms of the Report. We received only one request to publish an article critical of the Report. The author of said paper requested not only that we accept his manuscript without...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 14 October 2013Re: Journals and "academic FreedomShow More
in his recent article Bioethics Journal editor Udo Sch?klenk speaks grandly about academic freedom and bioethical journals "under seige". And yet, academic freedom and honesty must go together. His journal's website carries under a "new" banner a link to the 2012 Royal Society Expert Panel report on End of Life Decision Making. Mr. Sch?klenk was a principal author of this report. The report was not peer reviewed. Request...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper
- Authorship policies of bioethics journals
- Life in the cloud and freedom of speech
- Should policy ethics come in two colours: green or white?
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- Highlights in bioethics through 40 years: a quantitative analysis of top-cited journal articles
- Institute of Medical Ethics Guidelines for confirmation of appointment, promotion and recognition of UK bioethics and medical ethics researchers
- Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis
- Infanticide, moral status and moral reasons: the importance of context
- The moral status of babies