Bias in peer review
By Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, Blaise Cronin. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2013
990 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Law, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6106ff5ce52caec600b8771b80749b3f3508882b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Statistics and Probability
- Vincent Larivière
- Martin Kenney
- Karim R. Lakhani
- Remco Heesen
- Ben R. Martin
- Kevin J. Boudreau
- Liam Kofi Bright
- Cassidy R. Sugimoto
Citations in the corpus
- Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis (2023, background): “7,10 ) and the Nature family journals dataset across different journals ( Supp.”
- Is Peer Review a Good Idea? (2020, background): “One may want to criticize citation metrics as a measure of quality (Lindsey [1989]; Gruber”
- Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment (2019, background): “There is a continuing concern about whether this is the best system for determining the quality and importance of the reported scientific research (Lee et al., 2013).”
- Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science (2016, background): “(See Marsh et al. 2008 and Lee et al. 2013 for comprehensive reviews and syntheses of the relevant findings.)”
- Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review (2018, background): “The differential outcomes on the 417 basis of homophily suggests that peer review at eLife is influenced by some form of 418 bias—be it implicit bias [3, 16], geographic or linguistic bias [24,69,70], or cognitive 419 particularism [40].”
- Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal (2016, background): “…peer review to replace the more commonplace singleblind peer review system (e.g. Budden et al. 2008) have been motivated by a perception that papers authored by female scientists are reviewed less positively than papers authored by male scientists (but see Ceci & Williams 2011; Lee et al. 2012).”