Bias, the killer of all review, is the single most pernicious element of peer-review. What do you think?
Posted in: Scientific Community
doi:10.1126/science.aaq0322
If you used double-blind review, you significantly reduce the chance of bias against a particular author that a reviewer might have. As a long term editor, I can attest that many of the reviewers I have used over the years have high levels of integrity and evaluate the merits of an article in a fair-minded manner. When I receive one review that vehemently recommends a rejection of an article while another reviewer enthusiastically recommends acceptance as is for the same article, I generally send it to a third reviewer to mitigate potential bias.
There is always an element of bias with the reviewer and the editor/editorial team , This is particularly so when Originality is encountered. Many editorial teams do not send the manuscript for external review but manage it it internally. Editors have become obstetricians -- with masterly inactivity, As experts in their fields, they are expected to be more pro-active. A third reviewer will add but the herd perception.The Lancet places comments first. Any post-publication article without critical comment is worthless. .. .
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts