Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer review

Social Epistemology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 97-121

  Lipworth, Wendy ^a   Kerridge, Ian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Biomedical publishing; Peer review; Power; Publishing ethics; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650236139     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2010.534567     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Altman, L. 1996. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review-Part 1. Lancet 347 (9012): 1382-1386.
2. Atkinson, D. 1999. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Atkinson, M. 1994. Regulation of science by peer-review. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25 (2): 147-158.
4. Atkinson, M. 2001. "Peer review" culture. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2): 193-204.
5. Baez, B. 2002. Confidentiality and peer review: The paradox of secrecy in academe. Review of Higher Education 25 (2): 163-183.
6. Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
7. Bingham, C., and M. van der Weyden. 1998. Peer review on the Internet: Launching eMJA peer review study 2. The Medical Journal of Australia 169 (5): 240-241.
8. Brice, J., and J. Bligh. 2005. Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility. Medical Education 39 (1): 83-89.
9. Cain, J. 1999. Why be my colleague's keeper? Moral justifications for peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4): 531-540.
10. Callaham, M., and J. Tercier. 2007. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine 4 (1): e40.
11. Callaham, M., R. Wears, and E. Weber. 2002. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287 (21): 2847-2850.
12. Canagarajah, A. 2002. A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13. Casanave, C., and S. Vandrick 2003. Introduction: Issues in writing for publication. In Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education, edited by C. Casanave and S. Vandrick, pp. 1-13. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
15. Cheek, J., B. Garnham, and J. Quan. 2006. What's in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qualitative Health Research 16 (3): 423-435.
16. Chubin, D. 2002. Much ado about peer review, part 2. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1): 109-112.
17. Collinson, D. 2005. Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations 58 (11): 1419-1442.
18. Crane, D. 1972. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Crigger, N. J. 1998. What we owe the author: Rethinking editorial peer review. Nursing Ethics 5 (5): 451-458.
20. Davidoff, F. 2004. Improving peer review: Who's responsible? BMJ 328 (7441): 657-658.
21. Dear, P. R. 1991. The literary structure of scientific argument: Historical studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
22. Dickersin, K., E. Ssemanda, C. Mansell, and D. Rennie. 2007. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7: 44.
23. DiPalma, C. 2004. Power at work: Navigating hierarchies, teamwork and webs. The Journal of Medical Humanities 25 (4): 291-308.
24. Eisenhart, M. 2002. The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education 32 (2): 241-255.
25. Emanuel, L., and P. Greenland. 2005. Peer review and professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine 165 (22): 2559-2560.
26. Farthing, M. 2006. Authors and publication practices. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1): 41-52.
27. Fletcher, R. H., and S. W. Fletcher 2003. The effectiveness of journal peer review. In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 62-75. London: BMJ Books.
28. Foucault, M. 1980. Two lectures. In Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon, pp. 78-108. New York: Pantheon Books.
29. Freidson, E. 1986. Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Gannon, F. 2001. The essential role of peer review. EMBO Reports 2 (9): 743.
31. Ginsparg, P. 2003. Alternatives to peer review II: Can peer review be better focused? In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 312-21. London: BMJ Books.
32. Godlee, F. 2000. The ethics of peer review. In Ethical issues in biomedical publication, edited by A. Hudson Jones and F. McLellan, pp. 59-84. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
33. Godlee, F. 2002. Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 287 (21): 2762-2765.
34. Gosden, H. 2002. Thematic content in peer reviews of scientific papers. Seminários de Linguística 5.
35. Gosden, H. 2003. "Why not give us the full story?": Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 87-101.
36. Halliday, M., and J. Martin 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
37. Hewings, M. 2004. An "important contribution" or "tiresome reading"? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 247-274.
38. Hindess, B. 1996. Discourses of power: From Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford: Blackwell.
39. Hojat, M., J. Gonnella, and A. Caelleigh. 2003. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education. Theory and Practice 8 (1): 75-96.
40. Horrobin, D. F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263 (10): 1438-1441.
41. Horrobin, D. 1996. Peer review of grant applications: A harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 348 (9037): 1293-1295.
42. Horrobin, D. 2001. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 22 (2): 51-52.
43. Horton, R. 1998. The journal ombudsperson: A step toward scientific press oversight. JAMA 280 (3): 298-299.
44. Horton, R. 2000. The less acceptable face of bias. Lancet 356 (9234): 959-960.
45. Ingelfinger, F. 1974. Peer review in biomedical publication. The American Journal of Medicine 56 (5): 686-692.
46. Jefferson, T., M. Rudin, S. Brodney Folse, and F. Davidoff. 2007. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2): MR000016.
47. Judson, H. 1994. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA 272 (2): 92-94.
48. Kassirer, J., and E. Campion. 1994. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 272 (2): 96-97.
49. Kearney, M., and M. Freda. 2005. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health 28 (6): 444-452.
50. Kourilova, M. 1998. Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations 32: 107-14.
51. Kumashiro, K. 2005. Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review 75 (3): 257-285.
52. Lagendijk, A. 2005. Pushing for powe r. Nature 438 (7067): 429.
53. Larochelle, M., and J. Désautels. 2002. On peers, those "particular friends". Research in Science Education 32 (2): 181-189.
54. Luke, A., and C. Luke. 2005. Journals as intellectual fields: A response. Harvard Educational Review 75 (3): 277-280.
55. McCrory, P. 2002. To review or not to review, that is the question. British Journal of Sports Medicine 36 (2): 80-81.
56. Meehan, J. 2004. Feminism, critical theory and power. Philosophy and Social Criticism 30: 375-82.
57. Mills, C. 2003. Contesting the political: Butler and Foucault on power and resistance. The Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 253-272.
58. Morrison, J. 2006. The case for open peer review. Medical Education 40 (9): 830-1.
59. Morse, J. M. 1994. "Emerging from the data": The cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. In Critical issues in qualitative research methods, edited by J. M. Morse, pp. 23-42. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60. Moss, J. 1998. The later Foucault: Politics and philosophy. London: Sage.
61. Mruck, K., and G. Mey. 2002. Between printed past and digital future. Research in Science Education 32 (2): 257-268.
62. Oliver, S. (2001). Research report: Consumers as peer reviewers. London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
63. Olsen, M., ed. 1970. Power in societies. London: Macmillan.
64. Osborne, M., and D. Brady. 2002. The room is long and narrow. Research in Science Education 32 (2): 163-170.
65. Osmond, D. 1983. Malice's wonderland: Research funding and peer review. Journal of Neurobiology 14 (2): 95-112.
66. Parrish, D., and D. Bruns. 2002. US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process. JAMA 287 (21): 2839-2841.
67. Patton, P. 1998. Foucault's subject of power. In The later Foucault: Politics and philosophy, edited by J. Moss, pp. 64-77. London: Sage.
68. Peirce, C. 1958. Science and philosophy. In Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by A. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
69. Reichertz, J. 2007. Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In The SAGE handbook of grounded theory, edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz, pp. 214-28. London: Sage
70. Rennie, D. 1998. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: Setting the balance right. JAMA 280 (3): 300-302.
71. Rennie, D. 2003a. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 1-13. London: BMJ Books.
72. Rennie, D. 2003b. Innovation and peer review. In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 76-90. London: BMJ Books.
73. Rennie, D. 2003c. Misconduct and journal peer review. In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 118-29. London: BMJ Books.
74. Roth, W. 2002. Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education 32 (2): 215-240.
75. Ryn, C. 2001. A broader, subtler view of power. Humanitas 14 (1): 100-107.
76. Scheurich, J. 2005. That which is troubling many new scholars about the nature of research and publishing is the harbinger of the changes that we are living. Harvard Educational Review 75 (3): 274-277.
77. Smith, R. 1997. Peer review: Reform or revolution? BMJ 315 (7111): 759-760.
78. Smith, R. 2003. The future of peer review. In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 329-46. London: BMJ Books.
79. Smith, R. 2006. The trouble with medical journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
80. Spector Person, E. 2004. When the weak confront the strong: How groups effect change. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 54 (1): 83-102.
81. Spier, R. 2002. Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1): 99-108; discussion 09-12.
82. Stamps, A. 1997. Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1): 85-98.
83. Theilheimer, R. 2003. How publishing can be more than not perishing: Writing relationships. Change 35 (2): 48-53.
84. Tobin, K. 2002. The multiple faces of peer review in science education. Research in Science Education 32 (2): 135-156.
85. Tobin, K., and W.-M. Roth. 2002. The contradictions in science education peer review and possibilities for change. Research in Science Education 32 (2): 269-280.
86. Wager, E., and A. Herxheimer 2003. Peer review and the pharmaceutical industry. In Peer review in health sciences, edited by F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, pp. 130-139. London: BMJ Books.
87. Wartenberg, T. 1992a. Introduction. In Rethinking power, edited by T. Wartenberg, pp. 11-26. Albany: State University of New York Press
88. Wartenberg, T., ed. 1992b. Rethinking power. Albany: State University of New York Press.