Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review|
|Authors: ||Lipworth, W|
|Issue Date: ||2009|
|Citation: ||Lipworth W. 2009. Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review. Australasian Psychiatry, 17, 331-334.|
|Abstract: ||Imagine for a moment that you have been asked to review a manuscript for a peer reviewed psychiatric journal. The manuscript reports the results of a randomised trial of a new anti-depressant. What approach would you take? What principles would you apply?
Perhaps, in thinking through your approach, you considered the importance of disinterestedness, and of the need to apply the principles of critical appraisal as set out in the many guidelines available on evaluating clinical research. Perhaps, in other words, you considered the need to be as “scientific” as possible in your approach to the review. This attitude would be pleasing to most journal editors, who would likely subscribe to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) which state that :
Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific process. Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff. Peer review can therefore be viewed as an important extension of the scientific process.
At first glance this might appear to be a perfectly appropriate and realistic approach. After all, you are a scientist and you are reviewing a scientific manuscript, so it seems only reasonable that your approach to the review should be scientific too. But is it really so straightforward? Is a “scientific” approach to peer review really achievable? And even if it is achievable, is it necessarily desirable?|
|Rights and Permissions: ||The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists|
|Type of Work: ||Article|
|Type of Publication: ||Post-print|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Papers and Publications. Sydney Health Ethics|
This work is protected by Copyright. All rights reserved. Access to this work is provided for the purposes of personal research and study. Except where permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, this work must not be copied or communicated to others without the express permission of the copyright owner. Use the persistent URI in this record to enable others to access this work.
|BeyondTheConsulting_PP_2009.pdf||347.49 kB||Adobe PDF|
Items in Sydney eScholarship Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.