The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy

Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

Research suggests that scientists based at prestigious institutions receive more credit for their work than scientists based at less prestigious institutions, as do scientists working in certain countries. We examined the extent to which country- and institution-related status signals drive such differences in scientific recognition. In a preregistered survey experiment, we asked 4,147 scientists from six disciplines (astronomy, cardiology, materials science, political science, psychology and public health) to rate abstracts that varied on two factors: (i) author country (high status vs lower status in science); (ii) author institution (high status vs lower status university). We found only weak evidence of country- or institution-related status bias, and mixed regression models with discipline as random-effect parameter indicated that any plausible bias not detected by our study must be small in size.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere64561
JournaleLife
Volume10
Number of pages13
ISSN2050-084X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Nielsen et al.

Copyright:
This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

    Research areas

  • halo effect, meta-research, none, peer review, status bias, survey experiment

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 215268895