Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Academic Cheating
- Part II Academic Excuses and Fairness
- Part III Authorship and Credit
- Part IV Confidentiality’s Limits
- Part V Data Analysis, Reporting, and Sharing
- Part VI Designing Research
- Part VII Fabricating Data
- Part VIII Human Subjects
- Part IX Personnel Decisions
- Part X Reviewing and Editing
- 58 The Ethics of Repeat Reviewing of Journal Manuscripts
- 59 Bias in the Review Process
- 60 The Rind et al. Affair
- 61 Me, Myself, and a Third Party
- 62 Commentary to Part X
- Part XI Science for Hire and Conflict of Interest
- Epilogue Why Is Ethical Behavior Challenging?
- Index
62 - Commentary to Part X
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Academic Cheating
- Part II Academic Excuses and Fairness
- Part III Authorship and Credit
- Part IV Confidentiality’s Limits
- Part V Data Analysis, Reporting, and Sharing
- Part VI Designing Research
- Part VII Fabricating Data
- Part VIII Human Subjects
- Part IX Personnel Decisions
- Part X Reviewing and Editing
- 58 The Ethics of Repeat Reviewing of Journal Manuscripts
- 59 Bias in the Review Process
- 60 The Rind et al. Affair
- 61 Me, Myself, and a Third Party
- 62 Commentary to Part X
- Part XI Science for Hire and Conflict of Interest
- Epilogue Why Is Ethical Behavior Challenging?
- Index
Summary
Editorial and review processes are open to all the ethical weaknesses of human nature: favoritism, bias, controversy, misrepresentation, and motivated disagreement. Nevertheless, peer review is our best option for endorsing scientific merit and allocating prestigious journal space. The protections of blind – preferably double-blind – review are many. We are less likely to be influenced by loyalty and politics. We have more credibility with the public. We can hope the process is fairer than publishing everything, or the decision of a single gatekeeper, or a quid pro quo mutual backscratching system. Peer review actually does well, assessed against alternative standards.
An issue generating considerable controversy is whether scientists can remain objective and unbiased when accepting money from industry. Large amounts of money change hands between industry and scientists, and this practice has been challenged in prominent articles both in the profession and the press.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain SciencesCase Studies and Commentaries, pp. 194Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015