Bias in peer review

  title={Bias in peer review},
  author={C. Lee and C. Sugimoto and G. Zhang and B. Cronin},
  journal={J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.},
  • C. Lee, C. Sugimoto, +1 author B. Cronin
  • Published 2013
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.
  • Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated… CONTINUE READING
    452 Citations
    The limitations to our understanding of peer review
    • 10
    Imperfect referees: Reducing the impact of multiple biases in peer review
    • 4
    Bias in peer review: a case study.
    • 7
    • PDF
    The Social and Psychological Costs of Peer Review
    • 11
    • PDF
    Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM
    • 9
    • Highly Influenced
    • PDF
    Gender bias in scholarly peer review
    • 88
    • PDF


    Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity
    • 26
    • PDF
    Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
    • 220
    • Highly Influential
    • PDF
    Experience with NIH Peer Review: Researchers' Cynicism and Desire for Change
    • 36
    Editorial Judgments
    • 59
    Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?
    • C. Sen
    • Medicine
    • Antioxidants & redox signaling
    • 2012
    • 11
    • Highly Influential
    Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
    • M. Mahoney
    • Psychology
    • Cognitive Therapy and Research
    • 2005
    • 543
    • PDF
    Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
    • 878
    • Highly Influential
    • PDF
    Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices
    • 91
    • Highly Influential
    • PDF