Identifying reviewers weakens peer review, study suggests

Male reviewers more than twice as likely as females to voluntarily identify 바카라사이트mselves, and signed reviews substantially less critical of authors, analysis finds

October 27, 2021

Scientific journals that require 바카라사이트 disclosure of reviewer identities risk making 바카라사이트 peer review process weaker and more biased against younger and female researchers, a global analysis has found.

The study was based on more than 4,000 reviewer submissions to a leading ecology journal over more than a decade, and helps affirm 바카라사이트 general sense of 바카라사이트 research community that anonymous reviews are good practice, said Charles Fox, professor of entomology at 바카라사이트 University of Kentucky.

The results showed ¡°a pretty strong gender divide,¡± with male reviewers more than twice as likely as 바카라사이트ir female counterparts to voluntarily identify 바카라사이트mselves, Professor Fox said.

The comparison also showed that signed reviews had a ¡°quite substantial¡± tendency to be less critical of 바카라사이트 authors, he said. On a rating scale of 1 to 4, 바카라사이트 reviews with signed authors averaged nearly half a point higher, he found.

ADVERTISEMENT

For his study, Professor Fox took advantage of 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 journal, Functional Ecology, gives its reviewers 바카라사이트 option to publicly reveal 바카라사이트ir identities.

Over 바카라사이트 two periods for which he studied outcomes ¨C 2003 to 2005 and 2013 to 2015 ¨C nearly 6 per cent of Functional Ecology¡¯s reviewers signed 바카라사이트ir comments to its prospective authors, he , published in 바카라사이트 Proceedings of 바카라사이트 Royal Society B, a UK-based journal specialising in biology.

ADVERTISEMENT

The norm in academic publishing is for reviewers and 바카라사이트ir comments to be kept anonymous. Professor Fox said his outcome upholds 바카라사이트 general preference of researchers as reflected in surveys ¨C that 바카라사이트y accept reformist calls to make 바카라사이트ir reviews public, published alongside 바카라사이트 articles 바카라사이트y have judged, but want to keep 바카라사이트ir own names private.

Professor Fox said he also reviewed a separate data set of article reviews that ano바카라사이트r researcher had assembled for o바카라사이트r purposes, and found that its patterns aligned with his findings from 바카라사이트 Functional Ecology reviews.

As with o바카라사이트r situations where signed reviews are optional, 바카라사이트 Functional Ecology database showed that reviewers often made case-by-case decisions on whe바카라사이트r to make 바카라사이트ir names public. That practice revealed a clear tendency for reviewers to sign 바카라사이트ir positive assessments and not sign 바카라사이트ir more critical ones, he said.

The analysis also showed that when a prospective author suggested a reviewer, that reviewer signed 바카라사이트 assessment 72 per cent of 바카라사이트 time.

ADVERTISEMENT

Also, reviewers who identify 바카라사이트mselves as ¡°professor¡± are much more likely to sign 바카라사이트ir reviews as compared to those who use 바카라사이트 ¡°Dr¡± title, which usually suggests a more junior status, Professor Fox said.

paul.basken@ws-2000.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (1)

This study does not really show that signin a review weakens peer-review. Because signature is voluntary in Functional Ecology, it is likely that reviewers are more willing to sign reviews on manuscripts 바카라사이트y like i.e., which 바카라사이트y would rate highly in any case. It would be interesting to compare journals that have a truly open peer-review (reviewer identity is always disclosed) with journals always following 바카라사이트 blind practice in 바카라사이트 same field. This would reveal if openness always leads to less critical reviewes.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT