Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors

  title={Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors},
  author={D. Resnik and S. Elmore},
  journal={Science and Engineering Ethics},
  • D. Resnik, S. Elmore
  • Published 2016
  • Computer Science, Psychology, Medicine
  • Science and Engineering Ethics
  • A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. We examine the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review. Regardless of the outcome of additional research or attempts at reforming the system, it is clear that editors are… CONTINUE READING

    Topics from this paper.

    How are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?
    • 12
    A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review
    • 6
    Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
    • 7
    The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials
    • 12
    • PDF
    Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation
    • 5
    Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals
    • 3
    • PDF
    Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer Review
    • 3


    Publications referenced by this paper.
    Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors
    • 38
    • Highly Influential
    • PDF
    Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation
    • 160
    • PDF
    Bias in peer review
    • 440
    • Highly Influential
    • PDF
    Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
    • 877
    • PDF
    Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
    • 173
    • PDF
    Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study
    • 58