Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey

Nursing Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 741-748

  Broome, Marion ^a   Dougherty, Molly C ^b   Freda, Margaret C ^c   Kearney, Margaret H ^d   Baggs, Judith G ^e  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

^e OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ethical concerns; nursing journals; online survey; peer reviewers

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL RIGHTS; ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECEPTION; ETHICS; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; NURSING RESEARCH; PATIENT RIGHT; PEER REVIEW; PUBLIC RELATIONS; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ANIMAL RIGHTS; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMMUNICATION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECEPTION; DUPLICATE PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; EDITORIAL POLICIES; FEMALE; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MALE; NURSING METHODOLOGY RESEARCH; NURSING RESEARCH; PATIENT RIGHTS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PLAGIARISM; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 78649614762     PISSN: 09697330     EISSN: 14770989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0969733010379177     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. British Academy. Peer review: challenges for the humanities and social sciences. (British Academy report.) London: British Academy, 2007.
2. Freda M., Kearney M., Baggs J., Broome M. and Dougherty M. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs 2009; 25: 101-8.
3. Godlee F. and Jefferson T. Peer review in the health sciences, second edition. London: BMJ Publishing, 2003.
4. Cicchetti DV Referees, editors, and publication practices: improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review system. Sci Eng Ethics 1997; 3: 51-62.
5. Office of Research Integrity. Home page. http://www.ori.edu. (2010, accessed July 2010).
6. Pryor ER, Habermann B. and Broome M. Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. J Med Ethics 2007; 33: 365-9.
7. Devries R., Anderson M. and Martinson B. Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about ethics of research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2006; 1: 43-50.
8. Rennie D. Misconduct and journal peer review. In: Godlee F and Jefferson T (eds). Peer review in the health sciences, second edition. London: BMJ Publishing, 2003, p.118-30.
9. Crigger N. What we owe the author: rethinking ethical peer review. Nurs Ethics 1998; 5: 451-8.
10. Kearney M., Baggs J., Broome M., Dougherty M. and Freda M. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. J Nurs Scholarsh 2008; 40: 395-400.
11. Baggs J., Broome M., Dougherty M., Freda M. and Kearney M. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs Sci 2008; 64: 131-8.
12. World Association of Medical Editors. Home page. http://www.wame.org. (2010, accessed July 2010).
13. Kearney M. and Freda M. Voice of the profession: nurse editors as leaders. Nurs Outlook 2006; 54: 263-7.
14. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Home page. http://www.icmje.org (2009, accessed July 2010).
15. Broome ME, Pryor E., Habermann B., Pulley L. and Kincaid H. The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire. Account Res 2005; 12: 263-80.