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.
- Barker K, 2002. Accountability and Authorship. Science's Next Wave.
- Bird SJ, 1997. Authorship Under Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 235-236.
- Callaham ML, 2003. Journal Policy on Ethics in Scientific Publication. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 41, Issue 1: 82-89.
- Cho M, McKee M, 2002. Authorship in Biomedical Research: Realities and Expectations. Science's Next Wave.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 1999: Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. Clinical Oncology (2000) 12: 206-212. The Royal College of Radiologists. Reproduced with permission by the BMJ Publishing Group. The COPE Report 1999 London: BMJ Books 1999: 43-47
- Cottingham K, 2001. The Ethics of Authorship: Feature Overview - How Should Authorship Be Decided? Science's Next Wave.
- Council of Science Editors, Task Force: Biagioli M, Crane J, Derish P, Gruber M, Rennie D, Horton R, 1999. CSE Task Force on Authorship: Draft White Paper. Printed from www.CouncilScienceEditors.org.
- Fine MA, Kurdek LA, 1993. Reflections on Determining Authorship Credit and Authorship Order on Faculty-Student Collaborations. American Psychologist, Vol. 48, No. 11: 1141-1147.
- Gottesman M, 2001. The Ethics of Authorship: Authorship by Prior Agreement - Principles and Pitfalls. Science's Next Wave.
- Horton R, 1997. Sponsorship, Authorship, and a Tale of Two Media. Lancet, Vol. 349, No. 9063: 1411-1412.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1991. Statements from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA, Vol. 265, No. 20: 2697-2698.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1993. Conflict of Interest. Annals of Internal Medicine 118(8): 646-647.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1997. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. JAMA, Vol. 277, No. 11: 927-934.
- Johnson L, 2002. Scientific Fraud Found at Bell Labs, Associated Press.
- Kempers RD, 2002. Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publications. Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 77, Issue 5: 883-888.
- Kennedy D, 2003. Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems. Science 2003 301: 733. (In editorial.)
- Leash E, 1997. Is It Time for a New Approach to Authorship? Journal of Dental Research 76 (3): 724-727. Printed from www.CouncilScienceEditors.org.
- McGee G, 2001. The Ethics of Authorship: Does It Take a Village to Write a Paper? Science's Next Wave.
- New Scientist editorial, 2002. It's the Biggest Scandal Ever to Hit Physics-Who's to Blame?
- Noble M, 2001. The Ethics of Authorship: Policies for Authorship of Articles Submitted to Scientific Journals. Science's Next Wave.
- Oddi LF, Oddi AS, 2000. Student-Faculty Joint Authorship: Ethical and Legal Concerns. Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol. 16, No. 4: 219-227.
- Office for Responsible Conduct of Research, Columbia University. Roles & Responsibilities.
- Onlineethics, 2002. Sample Questions for Interviews of Faculty. Online Ethics Center.
- Olivieri NF, 2003. Patients' Health or Company Profits? The Commercialisation of Academic Research. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 9, Issue 1: 29-41.
- Penslar RL, 1995. Research Ethnics: Case and Materials. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
- Plaza 2002. Ethics of Publication, Authorship and Peer Review. (Slides.)
- Public Dissemination of Trial Results. Printed from www.assert-statement.org/ publication.html.
- Rennie D, Flanagin A, Yank V, 2000. The Contributions of Authors. JAMA, Vol. 284, No. 1.
- Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L, 1997. When Authorship Fails: A Proposal to Make Contributors Accountable. JAMA, Vol. 278, No. 7: 579-585. Erratum in: JAMA 1998, Vol. 279, No. 1: 22.
- Resnik DB, 1997. A Proposal for a New System of Credit Allocation in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 237-243.
- Resnik DB, 1998. Chapter 6, Ethical Issues in Scientific Publication. The Ethics of Science, pp. 96-121. New York: Routledge.
- Shadish WR, 2002. APA Ethics and Student Authorship on Master's Theses. American Psychologist, Vol. 49, Issue 12: 1096.
- Tarnow E, 1999. The Authorship List in Science: Junior Physicists' Perceptions of Who Appears and Why. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 73-88.
- Tarnow E, 2002. Coauthorship in Physics. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 175-190.
- Tregenza T, 2002. Gender Bias in the Refereeing Process? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 17, No. 8.
- Kalichman, M., 2001. Responsible Conduct of Research: An Introductory Guide. San Diego, CA: University of California at San Diego, Office of Research Integrity. Chapter 3, Publication.
- Wilcox LJ, 1998. Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, the Source of Complaints. JAMA, Vol. 280, No. 3: 216-217.
- Wilcox L, 2001. The Ethics of Authorship: An Ombudsperson's Perspective. Science's Next Wave.
- Wilson JR, 2002. Research Ethics Mini Rounds - a series of modular study units: Module II, Responsible Authorship and Peer Review. Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University.
- Wilson JR, 2002. Responsible Authorship and Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 155-174.
- Armstrong JS, 1997. Peer Review for Journals: Evidence of Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, Issue 1: 63-84.
- Atkinson M, 2001. "Peer Review" Culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 8, Issue 1: 193-204.
- Baldwin W, Seto B, 1997. Peer Review: Selecting the Best Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, Issue 1: 11-17.
- Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL, 1998. Reliability of Editors' Subjective Quality Ratings of Peer Reviews of Manuscripts. JAMA, Vol. 280, Issue 3: 229-231.
- Cole S, Rubin L, Cole JR, 1978. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, Office of Publications.
- Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.
- General Accounting Office, United States, 1999. Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary.
- Godlee F, 2002. Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit. JAMA, Vol. 287, No. 21: 2762-2765.
- Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F, 2002. Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review. JAMA, Vol. 287, No. 21: 2786-2790.
- Rennie D, 2002. Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA, Vol. 287, No. 21: 2759-2760.
- Rennie D, Flanagin A, 1998. Congress on Biomedical Peer Review: History, Ethics and Plans for the Future. JAMA, Vol. 280, No. 3: 213.
- Spier RE, 2002. Peer Review and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 8, Issue 1: 99-108.
- Sternberg RJ, 2001. On Civility in Reviewing. The Observer, American Psychological Association.
- Kalichman, M., 2001. Responsible Conduct of Research: An Introductory Guide. San Diego, CA: University of California at San Diego, Office of Research Integrity. Chapter 7, Peer Review.
- American Chemical Society Publications Ethical Guidelines
- American Journal of Public Health: Instructions for Authors
- American Historical Society Statement of Standards on Professional Conduct
- American Mathematical Society Ethical Guidelines
- American Physical Society: APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct: Responsibilities of Coauthors and Collaborators
- American Political Science Association (APSA): A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science
- American Psychological Association Ethical Guidelines
- American Sociological Association Code of Ethics
- Boston College, Publication Practices: Responsible authorship and citation: redundant or minimal publication; copyright
- British Medical Journal advice to contributors
- Columbia University Statement of Policy on Proprietary Rights in the Intellectual Products of Faculty Activity
- Columbia University Copyright Policy
- Columbia University's Faculty Handbook's Statement on Professional Ethics and Faculty Obligations and Guidelines for Review of Professional Misconduct
- Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center Guidelines for Review of Misconduct in Science
- Conservation Ecology: The Peer Review Process
- Council of Science Editors: Editorial Policy Statements Approved by the CSE Board of Directors
- Harvard University Policy on Authorship
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1993. Conflict of Interest. Annals of Internal Medicine 118(8): 646-647
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2003. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
- JAMA, 2004. Instruction for Authors - Manuscript Criteria and Information
- Journal of Bacteriology: Instructions to Authors
- Lancet guidelines for authors
- Modern Language Association (MLA): Statement of Professional Ethics
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research: Peer Review Policy and Issues
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research policy statement
- National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Student Briefing, covers authorship
- Science Magazine: Information and Help for Science Authors
- Society for Neuroscience Guidelines: Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication
- Stanford University, The Committee on Research, 1985. On Academic Authorship
- University of Minnesota, Marty Dworkin. Authorship
- University of Minnesota, Marty Dworkin. Peer Review
- Washington University in St. Louis: Policy for Authorship on Scientific and Scholarly Publications
Continue to the next section: → Conclusion