IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v64y2013i1p2-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias in peer review

Author

Listed:
  • Carole J. Lee
  • Cassidy R. Sugimoto
  • Guo Zhang
  • Blaise Cronin

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:64:y:2013:i:1:p:2-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/asi.22784
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "The influence of the applicants’ gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 407-411, November.
    2. Terttu Luukkonen, 2012. "Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 48-60, February.
    3. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    4. J Britt Holbrook & Robert Frodeman, 2011. "Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 239-246, September.
    5. Ulf Sandström & Martin Hällsten, 2008. "Persistent nepotism in peer-review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 175-189, February.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Extent of type I and type II errors in editorial decisions: A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 348-352.
    7. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    8. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2003. "A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 166(3), pages 279-300, October.
    9. David Lane, 2008. "Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields," Nature, Nature, vol. 452(7183), pages 28-28, March.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gatekeepers of science—Effects of external reviewers’ attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 83-91.
    13. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    14. Jonathan Grant & Simon Burden & Gillian Breen, 1997. "No evidence of sexism in peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 390(6659), pages 438-438, December.
    15. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Lipworth, Wendy L. & Kerridge, Ian H. & Carter, Stacy M. & Little, Miles, 2011. "Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1056-1063, April.
    17. Lutz Bornmann & Christophe Weymuth & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 493-506, May.
    18. Yankauer, A., 1991. "How blind is blind review?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 81(7), pages 843-845.
    19. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    20. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    21. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 2001. "Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 357-361, March.
    22. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    23. Henry G. Friesen, 1998. "Equal opportunities in Canada," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6665), pages 326-326, January.
    24. Marsh, Herbert W. & Jayasinghe, Upali W. & Bond, Nigel W., 2011. "Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 167-180.
    25. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Werner Marx & Hermann Schier & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2011. "A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(4), pages 857-879, October.
    26. Antonio J. Herrera, 1999. "Language bias discredits the peer-review system," Nature, Nature, vol. 397(6719), pages 467-467, February.
    27. Tim Vines & Loren Rieseberg & Harry Smith, 2010. "No crisis in supply of peer reviewers," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1041-1041, December.
    28. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2006. "Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: effects of university prestige and field of study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 209-219, December.
    29. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    30. Blaise Cronin, 2009. "Vernacular and vehicular language," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(3), pages 433-433, March.
    31. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 280-287.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    2. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Gandelli, Claudio, 2012. "Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 265-275.
    3. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    4. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One�s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    6. Martha M Bakker & Maarten H Jacobs, 2016. "Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 280-287.
    8. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    9. Teplitskiy, Misha & Acuna, Daniel & Elamrani-Raoult, Aïda & Körding, Konrad & Evans, James, 2018. "The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1825-1841.
    10. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    11. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    14. Patrícia Martinková & Dan Goldhaber & Elena Erosheva, 2018. "Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    16. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Benno Torgler & Marco Piatti, 2011. "A Century of American Economic Review," Working Papers 2011.27, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Philip R P Coelho & James E McClure & Peter J Reilly, 2014. "An Investigation of Editorial Favoritism in the AER," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 274-281, March.
    19. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    20. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2019. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics," Research Memorandum 029, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:64:y:2013:i:1:p:2-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.