Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 155–174

Responsible authorship and peer review

Article

Abstract

In this article the basic principles of responsible authorship and peer review are surveyed, with special emphasis on (a) guidelines for refereeing archival journal articles and proposals; and (b) how these guidelines should be taken into account at all stages of writing.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Feynman, Richard P. (1985) “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character, W. W. Norton & Co., New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langmuir, Irving, and Hall, Robert N. (1989) Pathological science, Physics Today 42: 36–48.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nye, Mary Jo (1980) N-rays: An episode in the history and psychology of science, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 11: 127–156.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wood, Robert W. (1904) The n-rays, Nature 70: 530–531.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huizenga, John R. (1993) Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fleischmann, Martin, and Pons, Stanley (1989a) Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 261: 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleischmann, Martin, and Pons, Stanley (1989b) Errata, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 263: 187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glass, B. (1965) The ethical basis of science, Science 150: 1254–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bronowski, J. (1965) Science and Human Values, rev. ed., Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CBE Style Manual Committee (1983) CBE Style Manual: A Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers in the Biological Sciences, 5th ed. rev. and expanded, Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, Md.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    CBE Style Manual Committee (1994) Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers, 6th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 927–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2001) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals [online], available online via 〈www.icmje.org〉 [accessed February 10, 2002].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rennie, Drummond, Yank, Veronica, and Emanuel, Linda (1997) When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable, Journal of the American Medical Association 278: 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Houk, V. N., and Thacker, S. B. (1990) The responsibilities of authorship, in: CBE Editorial Policy Committee, eds. Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, Md., pp. 181–184.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davidoff, Frank (2000) Who’s the author: Problems with biomedical authorship, and some possible solutions, Science Editor 23: 111–119.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, Craig (1999) The cold fusion debacle, presented at Research Ethics Institute, 13–16 June, at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Macrina, Francis L. (2000) Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases, 2d ed., ASM Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson, James R. (2001) Some guidelines on technical writing [online], Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, available as 〈http://www.ie.ncsu.edu/jwilson/guide.html〉 [accessed February 26, 2002].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chalmers, I. (1991) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct, in: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Chicago, pp. 169–177, also available as: Chalmers, I. (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct, Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1405–1408.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woodward, James, and Goodstein, David (1996) Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science, American Scientist 84: 479–490.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Medawar, Peter B. (1979) Advice to a Young Scientist, BasicBooks, New York.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson, James R. (1997) Doctoral colloquium keynote address: Conduct, misconduct, and cargo cult science, in: Andradóttir, S., Healy, K.J., Withers, D. H., and Nelson, B. L., eds. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp. 1405–1413. Available via 〈www.informs-cs.org/wsc97papers/1405.PDF〉 [accessed February 26, 2002].Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kronick, D. A. (1991) Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism, in: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Chicago, pp. 5–8, also available as: Kronick, D. A. (1990) Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism, Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1321–1322.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burnham, J. C. (1991) The evolution of editorial peer review, in: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Chicago, pp. 9–26, also available as: Burnham, J. C. (1990) The evolution of editorial peer review, Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1323–1329.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raymond, E. S. (2000) The cathedral and the bazaar [online], available on the web via 〈www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar〉 [accessed February 26, 2002].Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Relman, A. S. (1990) The value of peer review, in: CBE Editorial Policy Committee, eds., Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, Md., pp. 272–277.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Culliton, B. J. (1983) Coping with fraud: The Darsee case, Science 220: 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Relman, A. S. (1983) Lessons from the Darsee affair. The New England Journal of Medicine 308: 1415–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goodstein, D. (1995) Peer review after the big crunch, American Scientist 83: 401–402.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yalow, R. S. (1978) Radioimmunoassay: A probe for the fine structure of biologic systems, Science 200: 1236–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yalow, R. S. (1982) Competency testing for reviewers and editors, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 244–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McCutchen, C. W. (1997) Peer review: Treacherous servant, disastrous master, in: Elliott, D. E., and Stern, J. E., eds. Research Ethics: A Reader, University Press of New England for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College, Hanover N.H., pp. 151–164, also available as: McCutchen, C. W. (1991) Peer review: Treacherous servant, disastrous master, Technology Review 94: 27–40.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Horrobin, D. F. (1991) The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation, in: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Chicago, pp. 250–259, also available as: Horrobin, D. F. (1990) The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation, Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1438–1441.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dickersin K. (1991) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence, in: Peer Review in Scientific Publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Council of Biology Editors, Chicago, pp. 92–104, also available as: Dickersin, K. (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1385–1389.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siegelman, Stanley S. (1991) Assassins and zealots: Variations in peer review, Radiology 178: 637–642.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gleser, Leon J. (1986) Some notes on refereeing, The American Statistician 40: 310–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Halmos, P. R. (1985) I Want to Be a Mathematician, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Truesdell, C. (1951) Review of “Equations of finite vibratory motions in isotropic elastic media. Surface force sufficient to maintain equilibrium,” by García, G. (1950) Actas Acad. Ci. Lima 13: 29–38, Mathematical Reviews 12: 561.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Forscher, Bernard K. (1965) Rules for referees. Science 150: 319–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Callaham, M. L., Wears, R. L., and Waeckerle, J. F. (1998) Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance, Annals of Emergency Medicine 32: 318–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Callaham, M. L., Knopp, R. K., and Gallagher, E. J. (2002) Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials, Journal of the American Medical Association to appear.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., and Davidoff, F. (2002) The effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review, Journal of the American Medical Association to appear.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jefferson, T., Wager, E., and Davidoff, F. (2002) Measuring the quality of editorial peer review, Journal of the American Medical Association to appear.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strayhorn, J., McDermott, J. F., and Tanguay, P. (1993) An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry 150: 947–952.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Purcell, Gretchen P., Donovan, Shannon L., and Davidoff, Frank (1998) Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process, Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 227–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Waser, Nickolas M., Price, Mary V., and Grosberg, Richard K. (1992) Writing an effective manuscript review, BioScience 42: 621–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosenzweig, M. L., Davis, J. I., and Brown, J. H. (1988) How to write an influential review, Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 69: 152–155.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spier, Raymond E. (2002) Peer review and innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chubin, Daryl E. (2002) Much also about peer review, Part 2, Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 109–112.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Abelson, P. H. (1992) Integrity of the research process, Science 256: 1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations