Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism

Long, J. Scott; Fox, Mary Frank

doi:10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401

Cited by 379 publications

(197 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, placement in a prestigious journal can bolster the visibility and perceived quality of work of many scientists. Evaluating complex work is difficult, so scientists often rely on heuristics to judge quality; status of scholars, institutions, and journals are common means of doing so (21,22). Unsurprisingly, citations received by manuscripts were positively correlated with the impact factor of the journal in which it was eventually published.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

Siler

Lee

Bero

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

249

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is the main institution responsible for the evaluation and gestation of scientific research. Although peer review is widely seen as vital to scientific evaluation, anecdotal evidence abounds of gatekeeping mistakes in leading journals, such as rejecting seminal contributions or accepting mediocre submissions. Systematic evidence regarding the effectiveness-or lack thereof-of scientific gatekeeping is scant, largely because access to rejected manuscripts from journals is rarely available. Using a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different appraisals from editors and peer reviewers. Among rejected articles, desk-rejected manuscripts, deemed as unworthy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review. Among both rejected and accepted articles, manuscripts with lower scores from peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published. However, hindsight reveals numerous questionable gatekeeping decisions. Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were deskrejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill-suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research. Despite this finding, results show that in our case studies, on the whole, there was value added in peer review. Editors and peer reviewers generally-but not always-made good decisions regarding the identification and promotion of quality in scientific manuscripts.peer review | innovation | decision making | publishing | creativity P eer review alters science via the filtering out of rejected manuscripts and the revision of eventually published articles. Publication in leading journals is linked to professional rewards in science, which influences the choices scientists make with their work (1). Although peer review is widely cited as central to academic evaluation (2, 3), numerous scholars have expressed concern about the effectiveness of peer review, particularly regarding the tendency to protect the scientific status quo and suppress innovative findings (4, 5). Others have focused on errors of omission in peer review, offering anecdotes of seminal scientific innovations that faced emphatic rejections from high-status gatekeepers and journals before eventually achieving publication and positive regard (6-8). Unfortunately, systematic study of peer review is difficult, largely because of the sensitive and confidential nature of the subject matter. Based on a dataset of 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three leading medical journals-Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, and The Lancet-we analyzed the effectiveness of peer review. In our dataset, 946 submissions were rejected and 62 were accepted. Among the rejections, we identified 757 manuscripts eventually publis...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

Siler

Lee

Bero

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

249

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In academia, the majority (60%) of full professors at U.S. postsecondary institutions are White males, while 28% are female, 7% are Asian, 3% are Black, and 3% are Hispanic (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), and underrepresentation for many groups begins in early as early as doctoral programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Scholars have produced considerable evidence suggesting that bias is a possible contributor to this pattern, affecting hiring, pay, promotion, tenure, and funding outcomes (see Cole, 1979;Long and Fox, 1995;Valian, 1999). However, two important gaps limit our ability to understand and address this bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations.

Milkman¹,

Akinola²,

Chugh³

2015

Journal of Applied Psychology

397

264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about how discrimination manifests before individuals formally apply to organizations or how it varies within and between organizations. We address this knowledge gap through an audit study in academia of over 6,500 professors at top U.S. universities drawn from 89 disciplines and 259 institutions. In our experiment, professors were contacted by fictional prospective students seeking to discuss research opportunities prior to applying to a doctoral program. Names of students were randomly assigned to signal gender and race (White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Chinese), but messages were otherwise identical. We hypothesized that discrimination would appear at the informal "pathway" preceding entry to academia and would vary by discipline and university as a function of faculty representation and pay. We found that when considering requests from prospective students seeking mentoring in the future, faculty were significantly more responsive to White males than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higherpaying disciplines and private institutions. Counterintuitively, the representation of women and minorities and discrimination were uncorrelated, a finding that suggests greater representation cannot be assumed to reduce discrimination. This research highlights the importance of studying decisions made before formal entry points into organizations and reveals that discrimination is not evenly distributed within and between organizations. Disciplines Finance and Financial Management | Social and Behavioral SciencesThis journal article is available at

show abstract

“…A pesar de ello, el tema no es nuevo. La llamativa ausencia de las mujeres en el campo académico, y especialmente en el científico y el tecnológico, ha sido señalada y documentada intensamente (Vázquez-Cupeiro, 2015; Rifà-Valls y Duarte, 2013;Duarte, 2012;Izquierdo, León y Mora, 2008;Fox, 2004Fox, , 1995Izquierdo et al, 2004Izquierdo et al, , 1999Pérez y Andino, 2003;Rees, 2002;Fox y Stephan, 2001;ETAN, 2000;Clair, 1996;Ortiz y Becerra, 1996;Radl, 1996;González, Pérez y Fernández, 1995;Long y Fox, 1995;Van Verken y Hernández, 1989;Pérez Sedeño et al, s/f;Rossi, 1965).…”

Section: Marco Conceptualunclassified

Los fines de la formación universitaria desde una perspectiva de género

Mora

Pujal

2016

conrec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the main results of the analysis of the discourses that professors and students (by sex) have elaborated upon a set of university degree courses at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). We analyze, from a gender perspective, what kind of care and provision relationships are referred in such discourses. We identified a shared understanding between professors and students, independently from sex and degree, which emphasizes the provision like main end of the subjects. The incorporation of the dimension of care at weekends appears as a secondary aspect. Key words: university professor, university student, social action, care, provision. Resumen: Presentamos los principales resultados del análisis de los discursos que profesorado y alumnado (según sexo) han elaborado sobre los fines de un conjunto de asignaturas de titulaciones universitarias de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) (Catalunya, España). Analizamos, desde la perspectiva de género, qué tipo de relaciones de cuidado y de provisión remiten dichos discursos. Identificamos una concepción compartida entre profesorado y alumnado, independientemente del sexo y de la titulación, que pone el acento en la provisión como principal fin de las asignaturas. La incorporación de la dimensión del cuidado en los fines aparece como un elemento secundario. Palabras clave: profesorado universitario, alumnado universitario, acción social, cuidado, provisión.

show abstract

Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism

Cited by 379 publications

References 46 publications

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations.

Los fines de la formación universitaria desde una perspectiva de género

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About