Document Detail


Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21388730     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Peer- and editorial review of research submitted to biomedical journals ('manuscript review') is frequently argued to be essential for ensuring scientific quality and the dissemination of important ideas, but there is also broad agreement that manuscript review is often unsuccessful in achieving its goals. Problems with manuscript review are frequently attributed to the social and subjective dimensions of the process (e.g. bias and conflict of interest). While there have been numerous efforts to improve the process, these have had limited success. This may be because these efforts do not account sufficiently for all of the social and subjective dimensions of the process. We set out, therefore, to characterise the most salient social and subjective dimensions of the manuscript review process, from the perspective of practising reviewers and editors. Open-ended interviews were carried out with 35 journal editors, and peer reviewers in the UK, USA and Australia. It emerged from these interviews that reviewers and editors were conscious of a number of social and subjective influences on the review process including: a wide variety of motivations for participation, complex relations of power, epistemic authority and moral responsibility, and unavoidable prejudice and intuition. Importantly, these social and subjective influences were often viewed positively and were seen as expressions of, rather than threats to, editors' and reviewers' epistemic authority and expertise. From this we conclude that the social and subjective dimensions of biomedical manuscript review should be made more explicit, accommodated and even encouraged, not only because these dimensions of human relationships and judgements are unavoidable, but because their explicit presence is likely to enrich, rather than threaten the manuscript review process. We suggest a 'dialectical' model which can simultaneously accommodate, and embrace, all dimensions of the manuscript review process.
Authors:
Wendy L Lipworth; Ian H Kerridge; Stacy M Carter; Miles Little
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2011-2-18
Journal Detail:
Title:  Social science & medicine (1982)     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1873-5347     ISO Abbreviation:  -     Publication Date:  2011 Feb 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-3-10     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8303205     Medline TA:  Soc Sci Med     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Affiliation:
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Breast cancer delay: A grounded model of help-seeking behaviour.
Next Document:  Making sense of condoms: social representations in young people's HIV-related narratives from six Af...