This section contains an extensive list of references. The authors of this module have included an annotated list of what they consider to be the most important references regarding the topics of authorship and peer review.


Table of Contents
1: Annotated Primary Resources
2: General Background Resources
3: Guidelines & Web Resources
4: Video Materials

1: Annotated Primary Resources

Cain J, 1999. Why Be My Colleague's Keeper? Moral Justifications for Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 5: 531-540.
Cain offers a justification for scientists to do peer review, which is often a thankless job. He points out that motives to do peer review can be based on self-interest or on benefits for the scientific community as a whole.

Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, 1997. Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, Issue 1: 35-50.
The authors give a survey of the research into the effectiveness of peer review, including studies examining the blinding of reviewers to authors and the quality of the review process. They conclude that peer review needs further study or it might be abandoned.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2003. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
This Web site provides updated ICMJE guidelines, which are used by more than 500 biomedical journals, and helps to provide an excellent starting point for a discussion of the definition of an author.

Jones AH, McLellan F, 2000. Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore, MD, & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
The book provides a comprehensive analysis of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, and the possible problems that may arise. Chapters are written by contributors.

Macrina FL, 2000. Chapter 4, Authorship and Peer Review. Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases, 2nd ed: pp. 49-72. Washington D.C.: ASM Press.
In this chapter, Macrina highlights the key responsibilities for an author and a peer reviewer and provides case studies addressing ethical points, such as conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and authorship roles.

Shamoo AE, Resnik DB, 2003. Chapter 4, Publication and Peer Review. The Responsible Conduct of Research, pp. 68-92. New York: Oxford University Press.
In this chapter, the authors offer a history of scientific publication and describe the potential problems that can arise in publishing and peer review.


2: General Background Resources

Authorship Articles

Peer-Review Articles

3: Guidelines & Web Resources

4: Video Materials

Responsible Authorship Involves Several Different Factors
How Authorship is Decided
The Question of How to Handle Authorship
Criteria for Authorship
Peer Review: What Other Options Might There Be?
Improving Peer Review

Continue to the next section: → Conclusion