Search

It is a common practice for authors of an academic work to thank the anonymous reviewers at the journal that is publishing it. Allegedly, scholars thank the reviewers because their comments improved the paper and thanking them is a proper way to show gratitude to them. Yet often, a paper that is eventually accepted by one journal is first rejected by other journals, and even though those journals' reviewers also supply comments that improve the quality of the work, those reviewers are not customarily thanked. We contacted prominent scholars in bioethics and philosophy of medicine and asked whether thanking such reviewers would be a welcome trend. Having received responses from 107 scholars, we discuss the suggested proposal in light of both philosophical argument and the results of this survey. We argue that when an author's work is published, the author should thank the reviewers whose comments improved the paper regardless of whether those reviewers' journals rejected or accepted the work. That is because scholars should show gratitude to those who deserve it, and those whose comments improved the paper deserve gratitude. We also consider objections against this practice raised by scholars and show why they are not entirely persuasive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emphasis is growing on the use and form of doctoral acknowledgements, which are often viewed as sites of gratitude. Research has not addressed whether examiners are influenced by doctoral acknowledgements. We explore whether examiners read or do not read the acknowledgements, the reasons for their choice in this regard and whether the acknowledgements have an impact on examiners' overall judgement of the thesis. Data collected through an exploratory qualitative online survey indicated that the majority of examiners do read the acknowledgements for a number of reasons: to check on the extent to which the work is the candidate's own, to check on the quality of the student or supervisors and to discern the human being behind the thesis. Those who do not read them believe that the acknowledgements are not relevant to the examination process, they are not part of science, they are a personal statement and they have nothing to do with the quality of the work. Even though the majority of the examiners believe that they are not influenced by the acknowledgements, there was bias in their responses. This insight has pedagogical implications that relate to how doctoral supervisors and doctoral candidates understand and structure acknowledgements to meet the requirements of the examiners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor expresses gratitude to those who contributed to the success of the journal during his tenure as its editor.

A correction to the article "Performance and bacterial communities of successive alkalinity-producing systems (SAPSs) in passive treatment processes treating mine drainages differing in acidity and metal levels" is presented.