-
Proceedings of the National Academy of... Oct 2022Peer review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to biases like status bias, which we explore in this paper. Merton...
Peer review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to biases like status bias, which we explore in this paper. Merton described this bias as prominent researchers getting disproportionately great credit for their contribution, while relatively unknown researchers get disproportionately little credit [R. K. Merton, 159, 56-63 (1968)]. We measured the extent of this bias in the peer-review process through a preregistered field experiment. We invited more than 3,300 researchers to review a finance research paper jointly written by a prominent author (a Nobel laureate) and by a relatively unknown author (an early career research associate), varying whether reviewers saw the prominent author's name, an anonymized version of the paper, or the less-well-known author's name. We found strong evidence for the status bias: More of the invited researchers accepted to review the paper when the prominent name was shown, and while only 23% recommended "reject" when the prominent researcher was the only author shown, 48% did so when the paper was anonymized, and 65% did when the little-known author was the only author shown. Our findings complement and extend earlier results on double-anonymized vs. single-anonymized review [R. Blank, 81, 1041-1067 (1991); M. A. Ucci, F. D'Antonio, V. Berghella, 4, 100645 (2022)].
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Research Personnel; Writing
PubMed: 36194633
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2205779119 -
Minerva Cardiology and Angiology Jun 2024
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Reward; Periodicals as Topic; Peer Review
PubMed: 38298050
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06487-6 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Nov 2023
Topics: Humans; Ownership; Peer Review, Research; Publishing; Peer Group
PubMed: 37987061
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0751 -
The Journal of Neuroscience : the... Sep 2018
Topics: Animals; Humans; Neurosciences; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Research
PubMed: 30209201
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2072-18.2018 -
Seminars in Vascular Surgery Dec 2022Peer review is a learned skill set that requires knowledge of study design, review construct, ethical considerations, and general expertise in a field of study.... (Review)
Review
Peer review is a learned skill set that requires knowledge of study design, review construct, ethical considerations, and general expertise in a field of study. Participating in peer review is a rewarding and valuable experience in which all academic physicians are encouraged to partake. However, formal training opportunities in peer review are limited. In 2021, the Association of Women Surgeons and the journal Surgery collaborated to develop a Peer Review Academy. This academy is a 1-year longitudinal course that offers a select group of young women surgical trainees across all specialties a curriculum of monthly lectures and multiple formal mentored peer review opportunities to assist them in developing the foundation necessary to transition to independent peer review. The trainees and faculty mentors participating in the Association of Women Surgeons-Surgery Peer Review Academy compiled a summary of best peer review practices, which is intended to outline the elements of the skill set necessary to become a proficient peer reviewer.
Topics: Female; Humans; Peer Review; Peer Group; Mentors; Curriculum; Surgeons
PubMed: 36414364
DOI: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002 -
Translational Vision Science &... Mar 2022
Topics: Peer Review; Science
PubMed: 35319759
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.3.25 -
BMJ Health & Care Informatics Nov 2021(BMJHCI) is launching a partnership programme, where patients write articles and serve as peer reviewers on both patient-written and researcher-written articles. This...
(BMJHCI) is launching a partnership programme, where patients write articles and serve as peer reviewers on both patient-written and researcher-written articles. This article outlines the programme and describes the importance of public involvement in research and implementation in digital health. We think patients and carers should be funded to participate at this stage of research as well as other stages of research. The quality of peer review can be greatly improved by recruiting patients to peer review and improve readability and understanding of scientific literature and to ensure that research and other articles appropriately include what matters most to patients. Just as real-time communication is two-way communication, both healthcare providers and patients should have a voice in the literature, and involving patients in journals is an important step toward amplifying and supporting the balance of perspectives. Patients are the whole purpose of research and practice in health and care, so this rightly includes their role in the publication and review of health informatics literature as well as the publication of their own perspectives regarding access and delivery of healthcare. Patients and carers can provide valuable insights into research articles, and they can also serve as effective peer reviewers. The BMJHCI is excited to kick off the new partnership programme and encourages all interested patients and carers to apply to participate as authors and/or reviewers.
Topics: Caregivers; Communication; Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 34799412
DOI: 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100471 -
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2017Peer review is routine among physicians, nurses, and pharmacy staff yet is uncommon in the field of nuclear medicine technology. Although not a requirement of regulatory... (Review)
Review
Peer review is routine among physicians, nurses, and pharmacy staff yet is uncommon in the field of nuclear medicine technology. Although not a requirement of regulatory agencies, nuclear medicine technical peer review can greatly enhance the quality of patient care in both hospital and outpatient settings. To date, detailed methods for accomplishing this task have not been published. 19,688 nuclear medicine studies performed at a single institution over a 5-y period were critically reviewed. Major findings (errors with potential to change physician interpretation of the study or resulting in prescription error) and minor findings (errors without an adverse effect on study outcome or interpretation) were identified and tabulated monthly according to finding type, study type, and individual staff member. The technical peer review method used at our institution provided a comprehensive means to measure the rate and types of errors. Over time, this system tracked the performance of nuclear medicine staff and students, providing feedback that led to a measurable reduction in errors. We present a technical peer review system based on our own experience that can be adapted by other nuclear medicine facilities to fit their needs.
Topics: Humans; Nuclear Medicine; Peer Review; Quality Control; Reference Standards
PubMed: 28798228
DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.198473 -
The Journal of Biological Chemistry Sep 2019
Topics: Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 31519762
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.E119.010822 -
BMC Research Notes Apr 2022Journal peer review regulates the flow of ideas through an academic discipline and thus has the power to shape what a research community knows, actively investigates,...
Journal peer review regulates the flow of ideas through an academic discipline and thus has the power to shape what a research community knows, actively investigates, and recommends to policymakers and the wider public. We might assume that editors can identify the 'best' experts and rely on them for peer review. But decades of research on both expert decision-making and peer review suggests they cannot. In the absence of a clear criterion for demarcating reliable, insightful, and accurate expert assessors of research quality, the best safeguard against unwanted biases and uneven power distributions is to introduce greater transparency and structure into the process. This paper argues that peer review would therefore benefit from applying a series of evidence-based recommendations from the empirical literature on structured expert elicitation. We highlight individual and group characteristics that contribute to higher quality judgements, and elements of elicitation protocols that reduce bias, promote constructive discussion, and enable opinions to be objectively and transparently aggregated.
Topics: Peer Review
PubMed: 35382867
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06016-0