There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be. – Charles Sanders Pierce

Of all the traits which qualify a scientist for citizenship in the republic of science, I would put a sense of responsibility as a scientist at the very top. A scientist can be brilliant, imaginative, clever with his hands, profound, broad, narrow – but he is not much as a scientist unless he is responsible. – Alvin Weinberg
Chapter 6: References and Resources
  Atkinson, M. (2001). ‘Peer review’ culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 193-204.

Cain, J. (1999). Why be my colleague’s keeper? Moral justifications for peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 531-540.

Johnson, G. (2002, November 17). In theory, it’s true (or not). The New York Times, p. A8.

McCutchen, C. (1997). Peer review: Treacherous servant, disastrous master. In D. Elliott & J. Stern (Eds.), Research ethics: A reader (pp. 151-164). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Overby, D. (2002, November 9). Are they a) geniuses or b) jokers? French physicists’ cosmic theory creates a big bang of its own. The New York Times, pp. A19, A21.

Pimple, K. (2002). Six domains of research ethics: A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 191-205.

Research Ethics
Chapter 6: Moving On Up
Discussion and Reflection Questions
Integration Questions
References and Resources

This chapter addresses peer review, including confidentiality and avoiding personal bias and conflict of interest. Upon your completion of this chapter, we hope that you will be able to identify the elements of responsible peer review of manuscripts and grant proposal. We also want you to learn about the problems and consequences of unethical decision making in peer review.

  << Chapter 5 References Page 1 of 2 Next Page >>