Pride and prejudice – What can we learn from peer review?
Open Access
- 6 July 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Medical Teacher
- Vol. 42 (9), 1012-1018
- https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2020.1774527
Abstract
Objectives: Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors unrelated to research quality that may influence peer review reports, and assessed the possibility that sub-types of reviewers exist. Our findings could potentially improve the peer review process. Methods: We evaluated the harshness, constructiveness and positiveness in 596 reviews from journals with open peer review, plus 46 reviews from colleagues’ anonymously reviewed manuscripts. We considered possible influencing factors, such as number of authors and seasonal trends, on the content of the review. Finally, using machine-learning we identified latent types of reviewer with differing characteristics. Results: Reviews provided during a northern-hemisphere winter were significantly harsher, suggesting a seasonal effect on language. Reviews for articles in journals with an open peer review policy were significantly less harsh than those with an anonymous review process. Further, we identified three types of reviewers: nurturing, begrudged, and blasé. Conclusion: Nurturing reviews were in a minority and our findings suggest that more widespread open peer reviewing could improve the educational value of peer review, increase the constructive criticism that encourages researchers, and reduce pride and prejudice in editorial processes.This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bias in peer reviewJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012
- Classical peer review: an empty gunBreast Cancer Research, 2010
- What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2008
- Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studiesEmergencias, 2007
- The rulesBMJ, 2005
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Expanding the View of ScholarshipAcademic Medicine, 2000
- Linear Logistic Latent Class Analysis for Polytomous DataJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1992
- Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted againBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982
- Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review systemCognitive Therapy and Research, 1977