A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved.
- Publication Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models
- Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial
- Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial
- Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
- A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
- Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study
- Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study
- What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective
- Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study
- The peer review process: a primer for JNIS readers