Meta-Research: Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Final published version, 639 KB, PDF document
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.
|Publication status||Published - 18 Mar 2021|
© 2021, Nielsen et al.
Number of downloads are based on statistics from Google Scholar and www.ku.dk