Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Scientific ethics

Scientific ethics Next Section <h2>REPLY</h2> To the Editor: I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Epstein's assertion that all parties involved in the publication process, i.e., authors, reviewers, and publication committees, have a responsibility to subscribe to the highest ethical standards. In fact, he reminds me that I had planned to write a follow-up editorial addressing the importance of ethical behavior and its appearance for editors and reviewers. I am, however, dismayed by the implicit assumption that the “serious allegations” that Professor Epstein makes are widespread. This is simply not true. Professor Epstein asks what role the reviewers and publication committees play in peer review. Simply stated, the quality of the review process is directly proportional to the quality of the editors and reviewers. Choosing an editor-in-chief is of great importance for the American Physiological Society (APS). Nominations are solicited worldwide, evaluated thoroughly by the Publications Committee (PC) and Executive Council (president, president-elect, and past president) of APS, and the candidates are interviewed. Once an editor is appointed, it is his or her responsibility to nominate associate editors. Associate editors are also screened by the PC and, if approved, appointed. Once the editors and associate editors are appointed, they assemble at APS http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Physiology The American Physiological Society

Scientific ethics

Journal of Applied Physiology , Volume 92 (5): 2226 – May 1, 2002

Loading next page...
 
/lp/the-american-physiological-society/scientific-ethics-05bKrFJ3MV

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
The American Physiological Society
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 the American Physiological Society
ISSN
8750-7587
eISSN
1522-1601
DOI
10.1152/japplphysiol.01261.2001
pmid
12008650
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Next Section <h2>REPLY</h2> To the Editor: I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Epstein's assertion that all parties involved in the publication process, i.e., authors, reviewers, and publication committees, have a responsibility to subscribe to the highest ethical standards. In fact, he reminds me that I had planned to write a follow-up editorial addressing the importance of ethical behavior and its appearance for editors and reviewers. I am, however, dismayed by the implicit assumption that the “serious allegations” that Professor Epstein makes are widespread. This is simply not true. Professor Epstein asks what role the reviewers and publication committees play in peer review. Simply stated, the quality of the review process is directly proportional to the quality of the editors and reviewers. Choosing an editor-in-chief is of great importance for the American Physiological Society (APS). Nominations are solicited worldwide, evaluated thoroughly by the Publications Committee (PC) and Executive Council (president, president-elect, and past president) of APS, and the candidates are interviewed. Once an editor is appointed, it is his or her responsibility to nominate associate editors. Associate editors are also screened by the PC and, if approved, appointed. Once the editors and associate editors are appointed, they assemble at APS

Journal

Journal of Applied PhysiologyThe American Physiological Society

Published: May 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.