Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsible authorship and peer review

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. Langmuir, Irving, and Hall, Robert N. (1989) Pathological science, Physics Today 42: 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Wood, Robert W. (1904) The n-rays, Nature 70: 530–531.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Huizenga, John R. (1993) Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fleischmann, Martin, and Pons, Stanley (1989a) Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 261: 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleischmann, Martin, and Pons, Stanley (1989b) Errata, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 263: 187–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Glass, B. (1965) The ethical basis of science, Science 150: 1254–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bronowski, J. (1965) Science and Human Values, rev. ed., Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 927–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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].

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Davidoff, Frank (2000) Who’s the author: Problems with biomedical authorship, and some possible solutions, Science Editor 23: 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Taylor, Craig (1999) The cold fusion debacle, presented at Research Ethics Institute, 13–16 June, at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

  18. Macrina, Francis L. (2000) Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases, 2d ed., ASM Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  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].

  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. Woodward, James, and Goodstein, David (1996) Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science, American Scientist 84: 479–490.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Medawar, Peter B. (1979) Advice to a Young Scientist, BasicBooks, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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].

  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. Culliton, B. J. (1983) Coping with fraud: The Darsee case, Science 220: 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Relman, A. S. (1983) Lessons from the Darsee affair. The New England Journal of Medicine 308: 1415–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Goodstein, D. (1995) Peer review after the big crunch, American Scientist 83: 401–402.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yalow, R. S. (1978) Radioimmunoassay: A probe for the fine structure of biologic systems, Science 200: 1236–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yalow, R. S. (1982) Competency testing for reviewers and editors, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 244–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Siegelman, Stanley S. (1991) Assassins and zealots: Variations in peer review, Radiology 178: 637–642.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gleser, Leon J. (1986) Some notes on refereeing, The American Statistician 40: 310–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Halmos, P. R. (1985) I Want to Be a Mathematician, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Forscher, Bernard K. (1965) Rules for referees. Science 150: 319–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

  44. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., and Davidoff, F. (2002) Measuring the quality of editorial peer review, Journal of the American Medical Association to appear.

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Waser, Nickolas M., Price, Mary V., and Grosberg, Richard K. (1992) Writing an effective manuscript review, BioScience 42: 621–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Spier, Raymond E. (2002) Peer review and innovation, Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chubin, Daryl E. (2002) Much also about peer review, Part 2, Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Abelson, P. H. (1992) Integrity of the research process, Science 256: 1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2401 Stinson Drive, Riddick Labs 328, 27695-7906, Raleigh, NC, USA

    James R. Wilson (Professor and Head)

Authors
  1. James R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James R. Wilson.

Additional information

In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land. Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. ... It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. ... In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. Richard P. Feynman, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” 1 (pp. 310–311)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, J.R. Responsible authorship and peer review. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 155–174 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0016-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0016-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation