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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review


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
Pages (from-to)e64561
Publication statusPublished - 18 Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

© 2021, Nielsen et al.

Number of downloads are based on statistics from Google Scholar and

No data available

ID: 259160264