Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ray, J.G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ray, J.G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Q J Med 2002; 95: 769-774
© 2002 Association of Physicians

Editorial

Judging the judges: the role of journal editors

J.G. Ray

Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto e-mail: rayjg@mcmaster.ca

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In societies with a free and open judiciary system, individuals are permitted to challenge a judge's verdict, ability to remain impartial, and conduct. In the first situation, a higher court of appeal typically handles the matter.1 In the second, the judge is disqualified from overseeing a case if an objective observer raises reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality.2 In the third situation, a governing body, such as a judicial council, hears the complaint. To minimize the likelihood of such events, judges are appointed based on their legal knowledge, prior experience, and a historical demonstration of impartiality and fairness.

Although most medical journals and their editors conduct themselves fairly, there are some differences between their practice and that of a judiciary body. In this article, I pose four questions to medical journal editors concerning their impartiality and training as researchers and editors, and the options available to those who disagree with . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Clin NeuropsycholHome page
K. Duff, S. E. O'Bryant, H. J. Westervelt, J. J. Sweet, C. R. Reynolds, W. G. van Gorp, D. Tranel, and R. J. McCaffrey
On Becoming a Peer Reviewer for a Neuropsychology Journal
Arch Clin Neuropsychol, July 29, 2009; (2009) acp031v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
C. M Bell, D. R Urbach, J. G Ray, A. Bayoumi, A. B Rosen, D. Greenberg, and P. J Neumann
Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review
BMJ, March 25, 2006; 332(7543): 699 - 703.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
B. Begaud and H. Verdoux
Did the US boycott of French products spread to include scientific output?
BMJ, December 18, 2004; 329(7480): 1430 - 1431.
[Full Text] [PDF]