This research examined the experiences of authors of academic journal articles in the educational sector of all eight universities in Finland. The ethical principles of peer review and best and worst review processes were in focus. Data were gathered by electronic questionnaire, which was completed by 121 respondents who represented well the heterogeneity of the staff in the educational sector. Out of nine ethical principles honesty, constructiveness, and impartiality were appreciated but promptness, balance, and diplomacy were criticized. According (...) to two open questions, a third of authors praised and blamed reviewers as experts and non-experts. The accuracy of feedback was more often present in the best rather than in the worst experienced review processes. Journals’ editors and their decision-making called forth more negative than positive accounts. The results were discussed in the context of ethical codes for reviewers and researchers’ findings regarding the ethical responsibilities to promote good science with thorough, appropriate, and honest feedback and feedforward. (shrink)

Articles Review Article Reviews Brief Revies.

This article offers perspectives from academics with recent journal editing experience on a range of ethical issues and dilemmas that regularly pose challenges for those in editorial roles. Each contributing author has provided commentary and reflection on a select topic that was identified in the research literature concerning academic publishing and journal editing. Topics discussed include the ethical responsibilities of working with international and early career contributors to develop work for publication, balancing influence and responsibility to a (...) journal's disciplinary field while maintaining the integrity of editorial and review processes, and the challenges of promoting scholarly research that pushes epistemological, methodological, and political boundaries in an increasingly competitive publishing climate. This article aims to stimulate discussion concerning the roles, responsibilities, and ethical challenges faced by journal editors, and the implications of these for ethical practices in academic publishing today. (shrink)

Rooted in altruism theory, the purpose of the double-blind academic journal peer-review process is to: assess the quality of scientific research, minimize the potential for nepotism, and; advance the standards of research through high-quality, constructive feedback. However, considering the limited, if any, public recognition and monetary incentives that referees receive for reviewing manuscripts, academics are often reluctant to squander their limited time toward peer reviewing manuscripts. If they do accept such invitations, referees, at times, do not invest the (...) appropriate time needed and, as a result, scantily review manuscripts, which adversely affects the quality of the review. In addition, given that authors’ identities are not blind to journal editors, there is the potential for bias toward well-established academics from highly-ranked institutions. As a result of these issues, the aims of the academic journal review process are currently not being fulfilled. To rectify these issues, several recommendations, namely: single-blind the editors, pay reviewers, standardize the review process, increase the acceptance standards at academic conferences, and provide constructive feedback, are offered. (shrink)

I have enjoyed my six years as editor of this journal. I was pleased to be able to bring the journal to Purdue University Press and learn how to produce a first-rate academic journal. From the early days of choosing a cover design, to supervising my graduate assistant Jiwon Kim as she expertly sought indexing services, to acquiring an ISSN number, to being lucky to convince David Granger to become the book review editor and, with the (...) next issue, editor, I have been fortunate to work with excellent colleagues. I particularly want to thank the staff at Purdue University Press, especially its former director, Thomas Bacher, who agreed to publish the journal in 2004. Tom later moved the management of the journal's .. (shrink)

This article analyses, from a bioethics journal editor's perspective, the threats to academic freedom and freedom of expression that academic bioethicists and academic bioethics journals are subjected to by political activists applying pressure from outside of the academy. I defend bioethicists’ academic freedom to reach and defend conclusions many find offensive and ‘wrong’. However, I also support the view that academics arguing controversial matters such as, for instance, the moral legitimacy of infanticide should take clear (...) responsibility for the views they defend and should not try to hide behind analytical philosophers’ rationales such as wanting to test an argument for the sake of testing an argument. This article proposes that bioethics journals establish higher-quality requirements and more stringent mechanisms of peer review than usual for iconoclastic articles. (shrink)

Objectives: To examine the perspectives of journal editors and authors on overlapping and redundant publications in clinical research.Design: Pretested cross-sectional survey, containing both forced choice and open ended questions, administered by mail to the senior editors and one randomly selected author from all journals in the Abridged Index Medicus that published clinical research.Main measurements: The views of editors and authors about the extent of redundant publications, why they occur, how to prevent and respond to cases, and when the publication (...) of overlapping manuscripts is justified.Results: Seventy two per cent of editors and 65% of authors completed the survey. There was consensus between both groups that redundant publications occur because authors feel the pressure to publish and journals do not do enough to publicise, criticise, and punish cases, and that the publication of most types of overlapping articles is unacceptable. Sixty seven per cent of authors but only 31% of editors felt, however, that it was justified to publish an overlapping article in a non-peer reviewed symposium supplement, and 68% of editors but 39% of authors supported imposing restrictions on guilty authors’ future submissions. In written comments, 15% to 30% of both groups emphasised that it was justified to publish overlapping articles when there were different or non-English-speaking audiences, new data, strengthened methods, or disputed findings.Conclusions: Editors, authors, and other academic leaders should together develop explicit guidelines that clarify points of contention and ambiguity regarding overlapping manuscripts. (shrink)

Science is strengthened not by research alone, but by publication of original research articles in international scientific journals that gets read by a global scientific community. Research publication is the 'heart' of a journal and the 'soul' of science - the outcome of collective efforts of authors, editors and reviewers. The publication process involves author-editor interaction for which both of them get credit once the article gets published - the author directly, the editor indirectly. However, the remote reviewer (...) who also plays a key role in the process remains anonymous and largely unrecognised. Many potential reviewers therefore, stay away from this 'highly honorary' task. Appropriate peer review controls quality of an article and thereby ensures quality and integrity of the journal. Recognising and rewarding the role of the reviewer is therefore vital. In this article, we propose a novel idea of Reviewer Index (RI), Reviewer Index Directory (RID) and Global Reviewer Index Directory (GRID), which will strengthen science by focussing on the reviewer, as well as the author. By adopting this innovative Reviewer Centric Approach, a new breed of well-trained reviewers of high quality and sufficient quantity will be available for eternity. Moreover, RI, RID and GRID would also enable grading and ethical rewarding of reviewers. (shrink)