Skip to main content
placeholder image

Should biomedical publishing be ‘opened-up’? Towards a values-based peer-review process

Journal Article


Download full-text (Open Access)

Abstract


  • Peer review of manuscripts for biomedical journals has become a subject of intense ethical debate. One of the most contentious issues is whether or not peer review should be anonymous. This study aimed to generate a rich, empirically-grounded understanding of the values held by journal editors and peer reviewers with a view to informing journal policy. Qualitative methods were used to carry out an inductive analysis of biomedical reviewers’ and editors’ values. Data was derived from in-depth, open-ended interviews with journal editors and peer reviewers. Data was “read for” themes relevant to reviewer anonymisation and interactions among editors, reviewers, and authors. Editors and peer reviewers provided three arguments that would support a more open and interactive peer-review process. First, a number of participants emphasised the importance of not only ensuring the scientific quality of published research but also nurturing their colleagues and supporting their communities. Second, many spoke about the ongoing moral responsibilities that reviewers and editors felt toward authors. Finally, participants spoke at length about their enjoyment of social interactions and of the value of collective, rather than isolated, reasoning processes. Whether or not journal editors decide to allow anonymous review, the values of editors and reviewers need to be seriously addressed in codes of publication ethics, in the management of biomedical journals, and in the establishment of journal policies.

UOW Authors


  •   Lipworth, Wendy (external author)
  •   Kerridge, Ian (external author)
  •   Carter, Stacy
  •   Little, M (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2011

Citation


  • Lipworth, W., Kerridge, I. H., Carter, S. M. & Little, M. (2011). Should biomedical publishing be ‘opened-up’? Towards a values-based peer-review process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 8 (3), 267-280.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-80052461086

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4716&context=sspapers

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/3707

Has Global Citation Frequency


Number Of Pages


  • 13

Start Page


  • 267

End Page


  • 280

Volume


  • 8

Issue


  • 3

Place Of Publication


  • Netherlands

Abstract


  • Peer review of manuscripts for biomedical journals has become a subject of intense ethical debate. One of the most contentious issues is whether or not peer review should be anonymous. This study aimed to generate a rich, empirically-grounded understanding of the values held by journal editors and peer reviewers with a view to informing journal policy. Qualitative methods were used to carry out an inductive analysis of biomedical reviewers’ and editors’ values. Data was derived from in-depth, open-ended interviews with journal editors and peer reviewers. Data was “read for” themes relevant to reviewer anonymisation and interactions among editors, reviewers, and authors. Editors and peer reviewers provided three arguments that would support a more open and interactive peer-review process. First, a number of participants emphasised the importance of not only ensuring the scientific quality of published research but also nurturing their colleagues and supporting their communities. Second, many spoke about the ongoing moral responsibilities that reviewers and editors felt toward authors. Finally, participants spoke at length about their enjoyment of social interactions and of the value of collective, rather than isolated, reasoning processes. Whether or not journal editors decide to allow anonymous review, the values of editors and reviewers need to be seriously addressed in codes of publication ethics, in the management of biomedical journals, and in the establishment of journal policies.

UOW Authors


  •   Lipworth, Wendy (external author)
  •   Kerridge, Ian (external author)
  •   Carter, Stacy
  •   Little, M (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2011

Citation


  • Lipworth, W., Kerridge, I. H., Carter, S. M. & Little, M. (2011). Should biomedical publishing be ‘opened-up’? Towards a values-based peer-review process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 8 (3), 267-280.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-80052461086

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4716&context=sspapers

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/3707

Has Global Citation Frequency


Number Of Pages


  • 13

Start Page


  • 267

End Page


  • 280

Volume


  • 8

Issue


  • 3

Place Of Publication


  • Netherlands