Search News


Browse Archives

News

New Test for Bias in Peer Review

September 15, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Peer review is supposed to assure fair consideration of scholars' work for placement in journals, the awarding of grants and so forth. But many have their doubts and believe that fairness is much more theory than practice. Many scientists say in fact that incompetence and bias hinder the peer review process.

Andrew J. Oswald, an economist at the University of Warwick, has proposed a new way to test for bias. His system and some tests of it are outlined in a paper he wrote for the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute. While the system proposed is primarily a tool for looking at how journals rank articles, and he did the testing with his own field, economics, Oswald argues that it could be applied to other disciplines and avoids some of the pitfalls of other systems for detecting possible bias.

Oswald's system is simple: He looks at journal articles and the order in which they appear in a given publication, with the assumption that journals put the work that editors believe will have the most impact at the top of the table of contents. Then Oswald examines citation records for articles that are adjacent. The expectation, he writes, is that the top article should be cited more. If a journal is biased for or against a particular group, Oswald writes, this should show up. If, for example, a journal had a bias in favor of Harvard University scholars, they would not perform as well on citations as articles beneath theirs.

Many people who believe bias is a problem with journal selection cite the relative proportions at which articles from different groups are accepted or rejected by a journal, Oswald notes. Such a system assumes relative equity in quality among articles from the various groups. Oswald's system tests journals on what they actually publish, with the expectation that citations would match the journal's judgment on an article's quality.

The article includes demonstrations of how his system works. And although Oswald notes that the approach could be used to study bias for or against members of racial or gender groups, he looked at university affiliations. He finds some evidence of bias -- but with a suggestion that should reassure those who worry about cronyism. Oswald tested whether the Journal of Political Economy, published by the University of Chicago Press, favors Chicago authors. Using his system, he found the opposite: If there is bias, it is against Chicago authors, as they appear to be held to a higher standard than others, he writes.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on New Test for Bias in Peer Review

  • What about other factors?
  • Posted by Carol Perryman on September 15, 2008 at 8:25am EDT
  • This is an interesting paper but I do wonder, reading it, at whether other confounding variables might also be involved. Mainly, I am thinking about tendencies that departments may have to attract researchers working on particular types of problems, with the inevitable outcome being that papers from the same department would tend to fall into the same more-or-less focused area of study. This could easily occur in smaller departments, or those where at least one scholar of considerable stature attracts others with similar philosophical or methodological preferences. IF a journal was focused in this area of concern, or its current preference tended to mesh with those of a particular school - mightn't publication patterns tend to demonstrate 'bias' toward such pairings? Is an assumption being made in this research that institutions foster equally distributed research and methodological preferences?

  • Ordering and editorial bias
  • Posted by Philip Davis , PhD student at Cornell University on September 15, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • Older studies of print journals routinely found that order of publication mattered in terms of future citations. Was it that editors selected higher-quality articles to come first, or was there really an advantage to being first? It is difficult to say.

    Many scientific journals now publish articles online in order of acceptance, thus obviating any possible bias introduced by an editor.

    What is more important, however, is that few scientists view the table of contents of online journals, and arrive directly at the article from a search engine or linked reference from another online article.

    Editors can still be biased in favor of certain articles by highlighting them in editorials or flagging them in the journal with some additional status symbol. These signals may draw the attention of the reader in a similar way as giving an article higher priority in an ordered publication list.

  • peer review vs. editorial placement
  • Posted by Cheryl Ball , Editor, Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy on September 15, 2008 at 12:10pm EDT
  • After reading the above article, I was confused about the conflation of peer review and how an editor ranks/places one article before another in a paper journal. (My journal's TOC is alphabetical, but I've worked for print journals whose editors seemingly placed the 'best' piece first.) My confusion stemmed from the unconfirmed idea -- which was confirmed once I read the author's full article linked from this summary article -- that ranking has something to do with peer review.

    While, in the sciences, peer-review may have some influence over an editors' decision to place a print article at the front of a journal (which would then lend to the discussion of bias in the linked paper), in the humanities -- at least in my editorial experience -- the peer-review process doesn't necessarily contribute to where an editor chooses to place an article.

    I think the author is incorrect to assume (as he states in his introduction and also in footnote 3) that peer review and editorial (as in Editor) choices are intimately linked, or that this study could be applied to humanities journals.

    (I am thinking of my own processes here in placing articles when it comes to print journals, which is based more on thematic arc than on importance. But that could just be me. Placing the 'best' article first assumes that readers will encounter the entire journal like a book -- from start to finish -- not access random articles from an online database, like one commenter mentioned.)

    I'd like to see this study applied to humanities journals that don't use alphabetical placement, to see if there are similarities. It would be interesting. Or, better, a study that compares the first and second articles in a print journal to their retrieval rates from databases.

  • Editorial placement
  • Posted by Gavin Moodie , Principal Policy Adviser at Griffith University, Australia on September 15, 2008 at 4:45pm EDT
  • I agree with Dr Ball. When I edited the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management I ordered articles by several criteria: I often put first the articles that picked up a theme prominent in previous issues, those that reflected contemporary concerns or those by particularly prominent authors. My judgement of the quality of the articles was often a subsidiary consideration influenced but not determined by referees' comments and not at all influenced by the number of citations I expected.