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
  • [31] A scoping review of simulation models of peer review
    Feliciani, Thomas
    Luo, Junwen
    Ma, Lai
    Lucas, Pablo
    Squazzoni, Flaminio
    Marusic, Ana
    Shankar, Kalpana
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2019, 121 (01) : 555 - 594
  • [32] Peer-review procedures as practice, decision, and governance-the road to theories of peer review
    Reinhart, Martin
    Schendzielorz, Cornelia
    SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2024, 51 (03) : 543 - 552
  • [33] Towards theorizing peer review
    Hug, Sven E.
    QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES, 2022, 3 (03): : 815 - 831
  • [34] Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal
    Fox, Charles W.
    Burns, C. Sean
    Meyer, Jennifer A.
    FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY, 2016, 30 (01) : 140 - 153
  • [35] Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
    Park, In-Uck
    Peacey, Mike W.
    Munafo, Marcus R.
    NATURE, 2014, 506 (7486) : 93 - +
  • [36] Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action
    Clase, Catherine M.
    Dicks, Elizabeth
    Holden, Rachel
    Sood, Manish M.
    Levin, Adeera
    Kalantar-Zadeh, Kamyar
    Moore, Linda W.
    Bartlett, Susan J.
    Bello, Aminu K.
    Bohm, Clara
    Bridgewater, Darren
    Bouchard, Josee
    Burger, Dylan
    Carrero, Juan Jesus
    Donald, Maoliosa
    Elliott, Meghan
    Goldenberg, Maya J.
    Jardine, Meg
    Lam, Ngan N.
    Maddigan, W. Joy
    Madore, Francois
    Mavrakanas, Thomas A.
    Molnar, Amber O.
    Prasad, G. V. Ramesh
    Rigatto, Claudio
    Tennankore, Karthik K.
    Torban, Elena
    Trainor, Laurel
    White, Christine A.
    Hartwig, Sunny
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY HEALTH AND DISEASE, 2022, 9
  • [37] The "invisible hand" of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal
    Dondio, Pierpaolo
    Casnici, Niccolo
    Grimaldo, Francisco
    Gilbert, Nigel
    Squazzoni, Flaminio
    JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2019, 13 (02) : 708 - 716
  • [38] Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review
    Bianchi, Federico
    Squazzoni, Flaminio
    SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2022, 49 (05) : 791 - 800
  • [39] Is This Referee Really My Peer? A Challenge to the Peer-Review Process
    Tsang, Eric W. K.
    JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, 2013, 22 (02) : 166 - 171
  • [40] A historical review of publication bias
    Marks-Anglin, Arielle
    Chen, Yong
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (06) : 725 - 742