Commensuration Bias in Peer Review

被引:50
|
作者
Lee, Carole J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Philosophy, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
基金
美国安德鲁·梅隆基金会;
关键词
PUBLICATION BIAS; REPLICATION RESEARCH; DECISION-MAKING; INCENTIVES; PROPOSAL; SCIENCE; TRIALS; TRUTH; NSF;
D O I
10.1086/683652
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
To arrive at their final evaluation of a manuscript or grant proposal, reviewers must convert a submission's strengths and weaknesses for heterogeneous peer review criteria into a single metric of quality or merit. I identify this process of commensuration as the locus for a new kind of peer review bias. Commensuration bias illuminates how the systematic prioritization of some peer review criteria over others permits and facilitates problematic patterns of publication and funding in science. Commensuration bias also foregrounds a range of structural strategies for realigning peer review practices and institutions with the aims of science.
引用
收藏
页码:1272 / 1283
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Peer review: problem or solution in relation to publication bias, transparency and the internationalisation of scientific research outputs?
    O'Connor, S. J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2012, 21 (06) : 701 - 702
  • [12] Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review
    Roumbanis, Lambros
    SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2022, 47 (06) : 1302 - 1333
  • [13] Evaluation of Bias in Peer Assessment in Higher Education
    Stonewall, Jacklin H.
    Dorneich, Michael C.
    Rongerude, Jane
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2024, 40 (03) : 543 - 556
  • [14] Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review
    Katherine S. Button
    Liz Bal
    Anna Clark
    Tim Shipley
    BMC Psychology, 4 (1)
  • [15] Medical Misinformation on Social Media Cognitive Bias, Pseudo-Peer Review, and the Good Intentions Hypothesis
    Trethewey, Samuel P.
    CIRCULATION, 2019, 140 (14) : 1131 - 1133
  • [16] Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process
    Marcoci, Alexandru
    Vercammen, Ans
    Bush, Martin
    Hamilton, Daniel G.
    Hanea, Anca
    Hemming, Victoria
    Wintle, Bonnie C.
    Burgman, Mark
    Fidler, Fiona
    BMC RESEARCH NOTES, 2022, 15 (01)
  • [17] Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study's Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment
    Elson, Malte
    Huff, Markus
    Utz, Sonja
    ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2020, 3 (01) : 53 - 65
  • [18] Is Peer Review Censorship?
    Casadevall, Arturo
    Fang, Ferric C.
    INFECTION AND IMMUNITY, 2009, 77 (04) : 1273 - 1274
  • [19] What leads to gender bias in review panels?
    van den Besselaar, Peter
    Mom, Charlie
    18TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENTOMETRICS & INFORMETRICS (ISSI2021), 2021, : 1159 - 1168
  • [20] Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
    Superchi, Cecilia
    Antonio Gonzalez, Jose
    Sola, Ivan
    Cobo, Erik
    Hren, Darko
    Boutron, Isabelle
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (1)