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

Standard

Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts. / Nielsen, Mathias Wullum; Baker, Christine Friis; Brady, Emer et al.

In: eLife, Vol. 10, e64561, 03.2021.

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

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Nielsen, Mathias Wullum ; Baker, Christine Friis ; Brady, Emer et al. / Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts. In: eLife. 2021 ; Vol. 10.

Bibtex

@article{63cd403c03d545acb795ad9fe7ae094f,
title = "Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "halo effect, meta-research, none, peer review, status bias, survey experiment",
author = "Nielsen, {Mathias Wullum} and Baker, {Christine Friis} and Emer Brady and Petersen, {Michael Bang} and Andersen, {Jens Peter}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021, Nielsen et al. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine",
year = "2021",
month = mar,
doi = "10.7554/eLife.64561",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "eLife",
issn = "2050-084X",
publisher = "eLife Sciences Publications Ltd.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts

AU - Nielsen, Mathias Wullum

AU - Baker, Christine Friis

AU - Brady, Emer

AU - Petersen, Michael Bang

AU - Andersen, Jens Peter

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021, Nielsen et al. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

PY - 2021/3

Y1 - 2021/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - halo effect

KW - meta-research

KW - none

KW - peer review

KW - status bias

KW - survey experiment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103683599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7554/eLife.64561

DO - 10.7554/eLife.64561

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 33734086

AN - SCOPUS:85103683599

VL - 10

JO - eLife

JF - eLife

SN - 2050-084X

M1 - e64561

ER -