Advertisement

Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 41–48 | Cite as

Doffing the Mask: Why Manuscript Reviewers Ought to Be Identifiable

  • Leigh Turner
Article

Keywords

Manuscript Reviewer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bacchetti, P. (2002). Peer review of statistics inmedical research: the other problem, British Medical Journal 324, 1271–1273.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J.R. (2000). Privatizing the university – the new tragedy of the Commons, Science 290, 1701–1702.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, K.A. and McGee, G. (2002). Conflict of interest and AJOB, American Journal of Bioethics 2 (3), 1–2.Google Scholar
  4. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society, Nature 402, C81–84.Google Scholar
  5. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit, Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (21), 2762–2765.Google Scholar
  6. Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? British Medical Journal 316, 86.Google Scholar
  7. Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1999). Evidence on peer review – scientific quality control or smokescreen? British Medical Journal 318, 44–45.Google Scholar
  8. Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: reform or revolution? British Medical Journal 315, 759–760.Google Scholar
  9. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review, British Medical Journal 318, 4–5.Google Scholar
  10. Smith, R. (2001). Medical editor lambasts journals and editors, British Medical Journal 323, 651.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leigh Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations