2019
DOI: 10.1145/3371041.3371046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cognitive Bias in the Peer Review Process

Abstract: In a recent critique of reviewers, Ralph (2016) stated that "Peer review is prejudiced, capricious, inefficient, ineffective and generally unscientific" (p. 274). Our research proposes that one way the peer review process could appear flawed is if those involved had different beliefs about what was important in evaluating research. We found evidence for a cognitive bias where respondents to a survey asking about the importance of particular validity and reliability method practices gave different answers depen… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One examines only review criteria, specifically the proportion of reviews that are polite and/or constructive [51]. Finally, some focus on a more specific question, such as whether reviewers consider researchers' ethics [30] or the differing views of methodology held by researchers and reviewers [127].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One examines only review criteria, specifically the proportion of reviews that are polite and/or constructive [51]. Finally, some focus on a more specific question, such as whether reviewers consider researchers' ethics [30] or the differing views of methodology held by researchers and reviewers [127].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, Benos et al report that the American Physiological Society holds a yearly banquet for reviewers at one of its major conferences [27, p. 50]. Some superficial quantitative measures have also been suggested [see, e.g., 56,59,99,127]. These reflect quantity, however, and do not address the quality of the reviews done.…”
Section: Rewarding Reviewersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The speed of the publication process is crucial in science, especially in fields and subjects where timeliness and updates are important (Cooke et al, 2016). Moreover, publication delays may have dramatic consequences for the advancement of researchers' academic careers (Allen et al, 2022; Coronel, 2020; Street & Ward, 2019). Luwel and van Wijk (cited in Shen et al (2015)) found that journals have significantly reduced the time between processing manuscripts and making articles immediately available through quick editing procedures and early access availability, or preview of accepted articles, which promotes article dissemination after acceptance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The speed of the publication process is crucial in science, especially in fields and subjects where timeliness and updates are important (Cooke et al, 2016). Moreover, publication delays may have dramatic consequences for the advancement of researchers' academic careers (Allen et al, 2022;Coronel, 2020;Street & Ward, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%