Wendler David, Miller Franklin
Department of Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2014 Oct;40(10):697-701. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101364. Epub 2013 Oct 16.
A good deal has been written on the ethics of peer review, especially in the scientific and medical literatures. In contrast, we are unaware of any articles on the ethics of peer review in bioethics. Recognising this gap, we evaluate the extant proposals regarding ethical standards for peer review in general and consider how they apply to bioethics. We argue that scholars have an obligation to perform peer review based on the extent to which they personally benefit from the peer review process. We also argue, contrary to existing proposals and guidelines, that it can be appropriate for peer reviewers to benefit in their own scholarship from the manuscripts they review. With respect to bioethics in particular, we endorse double-blind review and suggest several ways in which the peer review process might be improved.
关于同行评审的伦理问题,已经有大量的著述,尤其是在科学和医学文献领域。相比之下,我们尚未发现生物伦理学领域有任何关于同行评审伦理的文章。认识到这一空白,我们评估了关于同行评审伦理标准的现有提议,并思考它们如何适用于生物伦理学。我们认为,学者有义务根据他们个人从同行评审过程中受益的程度来进行同行评审。我们还认为,与现有提议和指导方针相反,同行评审员从他们评审的手稿中在自己的学术研究中受益可能是合适的。特别是对于生物伦理学,我们支持双盲评审,并提出了几种可以改进同行评审过程的方法。