Commentary to part X

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationEthical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
PublisherCambridge University Press
Number of pages1
ISBN (Electronic)9781139626491
ISBN (Print)9781107039735
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Commentary to part X'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Fiske, S. T. (2015). Commentary to part X. In Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139626491.063