Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: A case study

F1000Research

Volumn 4, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Walker, Richard ^a   Barros, Beatriz ^b   Conejo, Ricardo ^b   Neumann, Konrad ^c   Telefont, Martin ^d  

^a SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MÁLAGA   (Spain)

^c CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^d EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC PRESTIGE; ARTICLE; AUTHOR; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; NONMEDICAL OCCUPATIONS; PEER REVIEW; PERSONALITY; PREJUDICE; REGIONAL BIAS; REVIEWER; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL BIAS; SOCIAL STATUS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

EID: 84930668579     PISSN: 20461402     EISSN: 1759796X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6012.2     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. DeCoursey T: Pros and cons of open peer review. Nat Neurosci. 1999;2(3):197-198. 10195206 10.1038/6295
2. Ware M: Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium. 2008. Reference Source
3. Armstrong JS: Management Science: What Does It Have to do With Management or Science? Mark Bull. 1998;9(1):1-15. Reference Source
4. Bradley JV: Pernicious publication practices. Bull Psychon Soc. 1981;18(1):31-34. 10.3758/BF03333562
5. Fletcher RH Fletcher SW: Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Sci Eng Ethics. 1997;3(1):35-50. 10.1007/s11948-997-0015-5
6. MacNealy MS Speck BW Clements N: Publishing in technical communication journals from the successful author's point of view. Tech Commun. 1994;41(2):240-259. Reference Source
7. Can peer review police fraud? Nat Neurosci. 2006;9(2):149. 16439975 10.1038/nn0206-149
8. Jefferson T Rudin M Brodney Folse S: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (2):MR000016. 17443635 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
9. Bohannon J: Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60-65. 24092725 10.1126/science.342.6154.60
10. Bornmann L: Scientific peer review. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol. 2011;45(1):197-245. 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
11. Ellison G: Is peer review in decline? Econ Inq. 2011;49(3):635-657. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00261.x
12. Emerson GB Warme WJ Wolf FM: Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934-9. 21098355 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406
13. Smith R: Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(Suppl 4):S13. 21172075 10.1186/bcr2742 3005733
14. Suls J Martin R: The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(1):40-50. 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01105.x
15. Sandström U Hällsten M: Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics. 2008;74(2):175-189. 10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3
16. Alberts B Hanson B Kelner KL: Reviewing peer review. Science. 2008;321(5885):15. 18599743 10.1126/science.1162115
17. Benos DJ Bashari E Chaves JM: The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(2):145-152. 17562902 10.1152/advan.00104.2006
18. Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178-182. 16574968 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178 1420798
19. Armstrong JS: Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci Eng Ethics. 1997;3(1):63-84. 10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3
20. Campanario JM: Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics. 2009;81(2):549-565. 10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5
21. Kerr S Tolliver J Petree D: Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Acad Manage J. 1977;20(1):132-141. 10.2307/255467
22. Campanario JM: Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Sci Commun. 1998;19(3):181-211. 10.1177/1075547098019003002
23. Mahoney MJ: Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res. 1977;1(2):161-175. 10.1007/BF01173636
24. Kravitz RL Franks P Feldman MD: Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e10072. 20386704 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072 2851650
25. Herron DM: Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2275-2280. 22350231 10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1
26. Schroter S Black N Evans S: Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):673. 14996698 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE 381220
27. Travis GDL Collins HM: New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1991;16(3):322-341. 10.1177/016224399101600303
28. Sieber JE: Improving the peer-review process relies on understanding its context and culture. Nature. 2006. 10.1038/nature05006
29. Budden AE Tregenza T Aarssen LW: Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(1):4-6. 17963996 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
30. Wenneras C Wold A: Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997;387(6631):341-343. 9163412 10.1038/387341a0
31. Bornmann L Mutz R Daniel HD: Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J Informetrics. 2007;1(3):226-238. 10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001
32. Webb TJ O'Hara B Freckleton RP: Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(7):353-354. 18450323 10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.003
33. Braisher TL Symonds MR Gemmell NJ: Publication success in Nature and Science is not gender dependent. Bioessays. 2005;27(8):858-859. 16015605 10.1002/bies.20272
34. Lee CJ Sugimoto CR Zhang G: Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2-17. 10.1002/asi.22784
35. Tregenza T: Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17(8):349-350. 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02545-4
36. Marsh HW Jayasinghe UW Bond NW: Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Am Psychol. 2008;63(3):160-168. 18377106 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
37. Peters DP Ceci SJ: Peer-review practices of psychology journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982;5(02):187-195. 10.1017/S0140525X00011183
38. Gillespie GW Chubin DE Kurzon GM: Experience with NIH peer review: researchers' cynicism and desire for change. Sci Technol Hum Val. 1985;10(3):44-54. 10.1177/016224398501000306
39. Ross JS Gross CP Desai MM: Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA. 2006;295(14):1675-1680. 16609089 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675
40. Lloyd ME: Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990;23(4):539-543. 16795738 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-539 1286270
41. Link AM: US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280(3):246-247. 9676670 10.1001/jama.280.3.246
42. Jayasinghe UW Marsh HW Bond N: A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2003;166(3):279-300. 10.1111/1467-985X.00278
43. Gilbert JR Williams ES Lundberg GD: Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA. 1994;272(2):139-142. 8015126 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020065018
44. Wing DA Benner RS Petersen R: Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19(10):1919-23. 20831430 10.1089/jwh.2009.1904
45. Caelleigh AS Hojat M Steinecke A: Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript. Teach Learn Med. 2003;15(3):163-7. 12855386 10.1207/S15328015TLM1503_03
46. Bornmann L Mutz R Daniel HD: How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study. J Informetrics. 2008;2(4):280-287. 10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.003
47. Bornmann L Daniel HD: Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation. 2009;18(4):262-272. 10.3152/095820209X477520
48. Bornmann L Daniel HD: Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e13345. 20976226 10.1371/journal.pone.0013345 2954795
49. Borsuk RM Aarssen LW Budden AE: To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience. 2009;59(11):985-989. 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.10