Bias in peer review

Makizadeh, Fatemeh; Zare Dehabadi, Fatemeh

doi:10.30473/mrs.2020.50651.1413

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Associate Profssor, Department of Knowledeg and Information Science , Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

² MSc. Student, Department of Scientometrics, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30473/mrs.2020.50651.1413

Abstract

Purpose: Peer review means the process of checking the work done by referee to ensure that the work ‎meets certain criteria. This study, with a brief description of the performance, history, scope of peer ‎review, seeks to clarify the complex social interactions of individuals directly and indirectly involved in ‎peer review by introducing a variety of bias studies.‎
Methodology‏:‏‎ The method of this research is descriptive-analytical and its content is collected through ‎review of resources.‎
Findings: Despite its importance to the scientific community, it is often criticized for its shortcomings. ‎Bias is one of the shortcomings that is known about peer review. Issues such as author nationality, ‎nationality of reviewers, publishing, interdisciplinary research, gender, organizational affiliation, author-‎referee dependency, etc. are effective in evaluating peer reviewers, which has produced different types ‎of bias in peer review. Experimental findings do not provide an accurate picture of this‏ ‏subject.‎
Conclusion: In the ideal world, reconciliation must be independent of the social identity of the writers ‎and referees and the theoretical cognitive bias of the referees; and the writings must be based on ‎originality, innovation, and impact. Because of the subjective nature of the existing peer review system, it ‎cannot be expected that the peer review system has a high level of objectivity and will act without bias ‎and divergence of tastes related to the cultural identities, social interests and professional and intellectual ‎expectations of the judges. Although it is not entirely possible to eliminate bias in arbitration, ‎understanding the types of bias involved in this practice may help to reduce bias by the referee and ‎increase the accuracy of the match. Scientific review and empirical research in evaluating the peer ‎review, providing ethical standards for authors, referees and editors, and peer reviewers training can be ‎ways to improve the peer review system. ‎

Keywords

Main Subjects

Internet of Things

References

ی سیلوا، پالی یو. کی. و وانس، کانداس کی. (2017). ارتباطات علمی: تغییر چشمانداز. مترجم، صالح رحیمی (1398) کرمانشاه: دانشگاه رازی

سلیمیان‌ریزی، فاطمه؛ عاصمی، عاطفه و فتاحی، رحمت‌الله (1393). شناسایی و بررسی مقایسهای امکانات و قابلیتهای بخش همترازخوانی سامانههای مدیریت پایگاه نشریات ملی و بینالمللی. مدیریت اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، 1(4)، 26-13.

علیدوستی، سیروس؛ دوران، بهزاد؛ خسروجردی، محمود (1388) مدیریت ارتباطات علمی. تهران: مرکز اطلاعات و مدارک علمی ایران.

میرزایی، سید آیت‌الله؛ ایوبی اردکان، محمد؛ قاراخانی، معصومه و شیخ شعاعی، فاطمه (1385). همترازخوانی در مجلات علمی (مطالعه موردی مجله جامعهشناسی ایران). مجله جامعهشناسی ایران،7(4)، 179-147.

Alidousti, S., Khosrowjerdi, M. & Dowran B. (2009). Management of scientific communication. Tehran: Iran Scientific Information and Documentation Center. ‏(‏in Persian‏)

Blackburn, J.L., & Hakel, M.D. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science, 17(5), 378-382.

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual review of information science and technology, 45(1), 197-245.

Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R. & Lortie, C. J.2008. Double-blind reviewfavours increased representa-tion of female authors.Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23,4e6.

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157-3162.

De Silva, P. U., & Vance, C. K. (2017). Scientific scholarly communication: the changing landscape. Springer International Publishing AG.

De Silva, P. U., & Vance, C. K. (2017). Scientific scholarly communication: the changing landscape. Translated by: Rahimi, S. (2019). Kermanshah: Razi University Press. ‏(‏in Persian‏) ‏

Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PloS one, 5(4), e10271.

Fox, C. W., & Paine, C. E. T. (2019). Gender differences in peer reviewoutcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolu-tion. Ecology and Evolution 9(6), 3599–3619.

Frost, P., Casey, B., Griffin, K., Raymundo, L., Farrell, C., & Carrigan, R. (2015). The influence of confirmation bias on memory and source monitoring. The Journal of general psychology, 142(4), 238-252.

Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. H. (2019). Peer review bias: a critical review. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670 – 676.

Hargens, L.L., & Herting, J.R. (1990). Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics, 19, 91–106.

Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S., & Callaghan, S. (2011). Citation and peer review of data: Moving towards formal data publication. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 4-37.

Lee, C. J. (2012). A Kuhnian critique of psychometric research on peer review. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 859-870.

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.

Mahoney, M.J. (1977). Publication preferences: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175.

Mallard, G., Lamont, M., & Guetzkow, J. (2009). Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science. Technology, & Human Values, 34(5), 573–606.

Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mirzaei, S A. Ayoubi Ardakan, M. Gharakhani, M. Sheikh Shoa'i, F. (2006). Peer Review in Scientific Journals (Case Study of Iranian Journal of Sociology). Iranian Journal of Sociology, 7 (4), 179-147. ‏(‏in Persian‏)

Murray, D., Siler, K., Lariviére, V., Chan, W. M., Collings, A. M., Raymond, J., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review. bioRxiv, 400515.DOI: 10.1101/400515

Palmer, A.R. (2000). Quasi-replication and the contract of error: Lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 441–480.

Parsons, M. A., Duerr, R., & Minster, J. B. (2010). Data citation and peer review. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 91(34), 297-298.

Peters, D.P., & Ceci, S.J. (1982). Peer-review research: Objections and obligations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 246–252.

Ross, J.S., Gross, C.P., Desia, M.M., Hong, Y.L., Grant, A.O., Daniels, S.R., Krumholz, H.M. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(14), 1675–1680.

Rust, J. & Golombok, S. (2009). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment (3rd Ed.) New York: Routledge.

Salimian Rizi, F. Assami, A. Fatahi, R. (2014). Identify and compare comparisons of features and capabilities of the alignment section of national and international journals management systems. Information Management & Knowledge, 1 (4), 26-13. (In Persian)

Samimi, M., & Anstey, A. (2017). At its best, peer review is wonderful to behold. British Journal of Dermatology, 177(6), 1466-1467.

Sandström, U. (2009). Cognitive bias in peer review: A new approach. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, July 28–31, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1–5.

Shimp, C. P. (2004). Scientific peer review: A case study from local and global analyses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(1), 103-116.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178– 182.

Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology 20(8), 357-8.

Tregenza, T. (2002). Gender bias in the refereeing process?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(8), 349–350.

Tyler, T.R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitmization. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

Williamson, A. (2003). What will happen to peer review?. Learned publishing, 16(1), 15-20.

Digital and Smart Libraries Researches

Bias in peer review

References

References

Volume 6, Issue 2
June 2019
Pages 51-62

Bias in peer review

References

References

Volume 6, Issue 2June 2019Pages 51-62

Volume 6, Issue 2
June 2019
Pages 51-62