Original title: The limitations to our understanding of peer review
Peer review is the process of evaluating research before it is published. It can influence both which work is trusted and which researchers gain academic standing. This paper maps what researchers still do not know, including how editors make decisions, how reviewer bias affects judgments, and what social effects the process has. The authors call for shared basic standards and shared data so these questions can be studied more carefully.
Imagine a school deciding which students’ projects deserve a place in a public display. The decision affects not only which projects people see, but also which students gain recognition, and it is hard to tell whether the judges use the same rules or are influenced by personal bias. In this paper, the display decision stands for peer review, and the authors call for shared rules and records so people can study how those decisions are made and what effects they have.
Researchers, editors, and readers rely on peer review to judge research, but the process also affects scholars’ reputations and standing. Understanding where it works, where bias enters, and how decisions are made could help the research community set clearer standards and examine its social effects.
The abstract maps gaps in understanding and proposes priorities, standards, and shared data infrastructure. It does not report tests of those proposals or establish how much peer review affects research quality, reviewer bias, or scholars’ careers.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
The limitations to our understanding of peer review — Jonathan Tennant, Tony Ross‐Hellauer — Research Integrity and Peer Review — doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Abstract licence: CC BY
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper.