When reviews attack: Ethics, free speech, and the peer review process

Canadian Psychology

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 152-159

  Hadjistavropoulos, Thomas ^a   Bieling, Peter J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGINA   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034553664     PISSN: 07085591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/h0086865     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles for psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
2. Bedeian, A.G. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189-1189
3. Brysbaert, M. (1996). Improving the journal review process and risk of making the poor poorer. American Psychologist, 51, 1193-11-93.
4. Canadian Psychological Association (1991). Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. Ottawa: Author.
5. Epstein, S. (1995). What can be done to improve the journal review process? American Psychologist, 50, 883-885.
6. Fine, M.A. (1996). Reflections on enhancing accountability in the peer review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1190-1191.
7. Finke, R.A. (1990). Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices. American Psychologist, 45, 669-670.
8. Fiske, D.W. & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45, 591-598.
9. Hadjistavropoulos, T. & Malloy, D.C. (1999). Ethical principles of the American Psychological Association: An argument for philosophical and practical ranking. Ethics and Behavior, 9, 127-140.
10. Houlihan, D., Hofschulte, L., Sachau, D., & Pattern, C. (1992). Critiquing the peer review process: Examining potential dual role conflict. American Psychologist, 47, 1679-1681.
11. Kant, I. (1977). Critique of practical reason. (L.W. Beck, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1788)
12. Levenson, R.L. (1996). Enhance the journals, not the review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1191-1193.
13. Malloy, D.C. & Hadjistavropoulos, T. (1998). A philosophical value analysis of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 39, 187-193.
14. Rabinovich, B.A. (1996). A perspective on the journal review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1190-1190.
15. Seitz, J. & O'Neil, P. (1996). Ethical decision-making and the code of ethics of the Canadian Psychological Association. Canadian Psychology, 37, 21-30.
16. Sinclair, C., Poizner, Gilmour-Barrett, K., & Randall, D. (1987). The development of a code of ethics for psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 28, 1-8.
17. Stark, C. (1998). Ethics in the research context: Misinterpretation and misplaced misgivings. Canadian Psychology, 39, 202-211.
18. Tri-Council Working Group on Ethics. (1997). Code of ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Social Science and Humanities Research Council.