Bias in Peer Review

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2013

Volume

64

Issue

1

Pages

2-17

DOI

10.1002/asi.22784

DOI registrant

Wiley

Link

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784

Cited from

law_governance, library_information_science

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Conflict of Interest
  • T4: Competition within Gatekeeping Roles. The formal tension: a gatekeeper (editor, journal, app store, credit rater) must evaluate others while competing with them in some other domain.

    This sourceSurveys empirical evidence on bias in scholarly peer review (where reviewers act as gatekeepers in fields in which they also compete), while noting the strength of several hypothesized biases is methodologically contested. (Prose slightly overstates the paper's equivocal conclusion — see flag.) Live-verified (Wiley).

    Supported in partVerified against the work's full text

    Lee et al. note peer reviewers who also serve as competitors of those they judge, a passing peer-review instance; app stores, credit raters and a general formal tension are absent.

    “mask bad faith efforts by reviewers who also serve as competitors”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Peer Review
  • Research on bias likewise identifies multiple possible mechanisms—status, affiliation, nationality, gender, discipline, content, and confirmation effects—whose evidence and operationalization vary.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:6bb8a63f23f3 · see in the full table