Librarian
Reducing bias in Peer Review
Even with transparency, anonymous peer review “can enable a certain amount of abuse, from bias to simple unkindness” (An Ethical Framework for Library Publishing).
To cite just a couple of examples systemic bias, a study by Publons notes that women have “fewer opportunities to take part in peer review” because male editors tend to suggest male reviewers (24). In terms of geographical inequality, the study also points out that “[e]stablished regions disproportionately dominate the peer review process, in large part due to compounding geographical biases in the appointment of editors and their reliance on local reviewers” (50). The reality of this systemic inequality makes it imperative for editors, authors, and reviews to take concrete step to reduce the inevitable bias in peer review that results.
Editors should:
- Develop clear policies and a code of conduct for addressing racism, bias, and discrimination in peer review (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Toolkit for Journal Editors).
- Commit to inclusivity among the journal reviewer pool and editorial board makeup (Iowa State University Digital Press Diversity Statement)
- Reject any reviewing practices “that are exclusionary and intervene before sending potentially traumatic reviews to authors” (Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices).
- Screen reviews for racist, libelous, offensive, or unethical content (COPE: Guidance on Editing Peer Reviews).
- Consider adopting a “bias interrupter” model for peer review in which journal staff evaluate every review for potential bias before reviews are shared with the author (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Toolkit for Journal Editors).
- Assess whether or not reviewers have adequately followed the journal’s peer review guidelines.
Reviewers should:
- Judge a submission on its merits alone without regard to race, gender, religion, nationality, sexuality, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author (COPE Discussion Topic: Bias in Peer Review).
- Root reviews in evidence from the submission only, supporting any critiques with specific examples from the text (COPE Discussion Topic: Bias in Peer Review).
- Notify the journal of potential competing interests (COPE: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
- Be objective and constructive in reviews, focusing on providing feedback that will help to improve a submission.
- Be professional and avoid any hostile, inflammatory, or derogatory language or assertions (COPE: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
When faced with clear or potential examples of bias in peer review, editors may find it challenging to determine the best course of action to take. That is why it is important to prepare for this eventuality by developing and sharing clear peer review policies and guidelines in advance.
At the very least, your journal’s peer review guidelines, statements, policies, and descriptions should make clear that any form of bias in reviews is unacceptable and define what actions your editorial team will take if bias is identified. A statement like this is a good starting point:
|
Reviewers are expected to give constructive, unbiased evaluations of the submissions they are assigned. They should consider a submission as objectively as possible and without regard to the race, gender, religion, nationality, sexuality, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author. The editors reserve the right to edit or fully reject any review containing biased content and to end a biased reviewer’s association with the journal if we see fit. |
In clear cases of bias, we recommend that biased reviews be rejected and that biased reviewers be removed from future consideration as reviewers. There is nothing to be gained by sharing a racist, sexist, or otherwise abusive review with the author (AUP Handbook: Best Practices for Peer Review).
However, we recognize that instances of potential bias may not always be clear cut and that a potentially biased review may contain suggestions that would be helpful to the author and useful in improving a submission. In cases like this, editors should use their discretion in editing or deleting potential instances of bias before sharing a review with an author. In addition, editors should use their discretion regarding if/when to communicate concerns about bias to reviewers and if/when to give them an opportunity to revise their work. Most importantly, editors must always (1) protect authors from any harmful review content and (2) “trust BIPOC authors who identify a review as racist” (Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices).