Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 72, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1056-1063

  Lipworth, Wendy L ^a   Kerridge, Ian H ^a   Carter, Stacy M ^a   Little, Miles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; Bioethics; Biomedical publishing; Journals; Peer review; Publication ethics; United kingdom; USA

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; ETHICS; LITERATURE REVIEW; MEDICINE; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIOETHICS; BIOMEDICINE; ETHICAL DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH ETHICS; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; WORK EXPERIENCE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MOTIVATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLICATION BIAS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIOLOGY;

AUSTRALIA; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79953751391     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. American Medical Association. American Medical Association.
2. Atkinson D. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
3. Bingham C. Peer review on the internet: Are there faster, fairer, more effective methods of peer review?. Peer review in health sciences 2003, 277-296. BMJ Books, London. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds.).
4. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis 2006, Sage, London.
5. Day F.C., Schriger D.L., Todd C., Wears R.L. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2002, 40(3):329-333.
6. Flak L., Nordheim S., Munkvold B. Analyzing stakeholder diversity in G2G efforts: combining descriptive stakeholder theory and dialectic process theory. E-Service Journal 2008, 6(2):3-23.
7. Freda M., Kearney M. Ethical issues faced by nursing editors. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2005, 27(4):487-499.
8. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002, 287(21):2762-2765.
9. Godlee F., Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences 2003, BMJ Books, London.
10. Gosden H. Thematic content in peer reviews of scientific papers. Seminários de Linguićstica 2002, 5.
11. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, 2. MR000016.
12. Lamont M. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment 2009, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
13. McLellan F., Riis P. Ethical conduct for reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts. Peer review in health sciences 2003, 136-147. BMJ Books, London. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds.).
14. Morse J.M. 'Emerging from the data': the cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. Critical issues in qualitative research methods 1994, 23-42. Sage, Thousand Oaks. J.M. Morse (Ed.).
15. Overbeke J., Wager E. The state of the evidence: What we know and what we don't know about journal peer review. Peer review in health sciences 2003, 1-13. BMJ Books, London. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds.).
16. Rennie D. Misconduct and journal peer review. Peer review in health sciences 2003, 118-129. BMJ Books, London. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson (Eds.).
17. Resch K., Ernst E., Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2000, 93(4):164-167.
18. Philosophy and sociology of science: An introduction 1987, Blackwell, Oxford. S. Richards (Ed.).
19. Smith R. The trouble with medical journals 2006, Royal Society of Medicine Press, London.
20. Tercier J., Callaham M. A normative model of peer review: qualitative assessment of manuscript reviewers' attitudes towards peer review 2007.
21. Tercier J., Callaham M. Peer review: consensus and contradiction, a qualitative approach 2007.
22. Westphal K.R. Dialectic. The Edinburgh dictionary of continental philosophy 2005, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. J.L. Protevi (Ed.).