Advertisement

Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 181–188 | Cite as

Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review

  • Leigh Turner
Article

Abstract

Peer review is an important component of scholarly research. Long a “black box” whose practical mechanisms were unknown to researchers and readers, peer review is increasingly facing demands for accountability and improvement. Numerous studies address empirical aspects of the peer review process. Much less consideration is typically given to normative dimensions of peer review. This paper considers what authors, editors, reviewers, and readers ought to expect from the peer review process. Integrity in the review process is vital if various parties are to have trust, or faith, in the credibility of peer review mechanisms. Trust in the quality of peer review can increase or diminish in response to numerous factors. Five core elements of peer review are identified. Constitutive elements of scholarly peer review include: fairness in critical analysis of manuscripts; the selection of appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise; identifiable, publicly accountable reviewers; timely reviews, and helpful critical commentary. The F.A.I.T.H. model provides a basis for linking conceptual analysis of the core norms of peer review with empirical research into the adequacy and effectiveness of various processes of peer review. The model is intended to describe core elements of high-quality peer review and suggest what factors can foster or hinder trust in the integrity of peer review.

academic research accountability fairness peer review 

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. Burt, B.A. (2002). Acceptance rates and publication times. Community Dent Oral Epidemiology 30, 1–2.Google Scholar
  3. Clausen, T. & Nielsen, O.B. (2003). Reviewing should be shown in publication list, Nature 421, 689.Google Scholar
  4. Dalton, R. (2001). Peers under pressure, Nature 413, 102–104.Google Scholar
  5. Editorial (2001). Peer-to-peer, Nature Immunology 2, 275.Google Scholar
  6. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit, JAMA 287, 2762–2765.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. Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? British Medical Journal 316, 86.Google Scholar
  9. Koonin, E.V. (2003). Swift publication would reward good reviewers, Nature 422, 374.Google Scholar
  10. Newmark, P. (2003). Peer review and the rewards of open access, Nature 422, 661.Google Scholar
  11. Rennie, B. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right, JAMA 280, 300–302.Google Scholar
  12. Rocha, B. (2001). Trouble with peer review, Nature Immunology 2, 277.Google Scholar
  13. Roy, R. & Ashburn, J.R. (2001). The perils of peer review, Nature 414, 393–394.Google Scholar
  14. Singer, P. (2000). Medical journals are dead. Long live medical journals, CMAJ 162, 517–518.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, R. (2001). Medical editor lambasts journals and editors, British Medical Journal 323, 651.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review, British Medical Journal 318, 4–5.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: reform or revolution? British Medical Journal 315, 759–760.Google Scholar
  18. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leigh Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, Faculty of MedicineMcGill University and Montreal General HospitalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations