An examination of sources of peer-review bias
An examination of sources of peer-review bias
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01715.x
复制
发表时间：
2006-05-01
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
Hakel, MD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blackburn, JL;Hakel, MD
对提交给专业协会三届年会的 1,983 份海报进行同行评审评级，以检查是否存在偏见。通过分析 7,383 组评级，对源自文献的关于优于平均效果的假设进行了检验。撰写海报的审稿人给出的平均评分低于未撰写海报的审稿人。具有至少一名审稿人的作者身份的海报比只有非审稿人的海报获得更高的评级。审稿人的经验和专业角色也被视为偏见因素。将评级转换为 z 分数，并检查可靠性和接受决策的差异。讨论了对当前同行评审实践的影响。
Peer-review ratings of 1,983 posters submitted for three annual conferences of a professional society were examined for evidence of bias. Hypotheses derived from the literature on the better-than-average effect were tested by analyzing 7,383 sets of ratings. Reviewers who authored posters gave lower average ratings than reviewers who did not author posters. Posters having authorship that included at least one reviewer received higher ratings than those having only nonreviewing authors. Reviewers' experience and professional role were also explored as biasing factors. The ratings were converted into z scores, and differences in reliability and acceptance decisions were examined. Implications for current peer-review practices are discussed.