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

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Meta-Research : Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts. / Nielsen, Mathias Wullum; Baker, Christine Friis; Brady, Emer; Petersen, Michael Bang; Andersen, Jens Peter.

In: eLife, Vol. 10, 18.03.2021, p. e64561.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Nielsen, MW, Baker, CF, Brady, E, Petersen, MB & Andersen, JP 2021, 'Meta-Research: Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts', eLife, vol. 10, pp. e64561. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64561

APA

Nielsen, M. W., Baker, C. F., Brady, E., Petersen, M. B., & Andersen, J. P. (2021). Meta-Research: Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts. eLife, 10, e64561. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64561

Vancouver

Nielsen MW, Baker CF, Brady E, Petersen MB, Andersen JP. Meta-Research: Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts. eLife. 2021 Mar 18;10:e64561. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64561

Author

Nielsen, Mathias Wullum ; Baker, Christine Friis ; Brady, Emer ; Petersen, Michael Bang ; Andersen, Jens Peter. / Meta-Research : Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts. In: eLife. 2021 ; Vol. 10. pp. e64561.

Bibtex

@article{5eae237c7e384bce9e78878222fa6918,
title = "Meta-Research: 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.",
author = "Nielsen, {Mathias Wullum} and Baker, {Christine Friis} and Emer Brady and Petersen, {Michael Bang} and Andersen, {Jens Peter}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2021, Nielsen et al.",
year = "2021",
month = mar,
day = "18",
doi = "10.7554/eLife.64561",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "e64561",
journal = "eLife",
issn = "2050-084X",
publisher = "eLife Sciences Publications Ltd.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-Research

T2 - 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 - © 2021, Nielsen et al.

PY - 2021/3/18

Y1 - 2021/3/18

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.

U2 - 10.7554/eLife.64561

DO - 10.7554/eLife.64561

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 33734086

VL - 10

SP - e64561

JO - eLife

JF - eLife

SN - 2050-084X

ER -

ID: 259160264