Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

5 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Pride and prejudice - What can we learn from peer review?

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors unrelated to research quality that may influence peer review reports, and assessed the possibility that sub-types of reviewers exist. Our findings could potentially improve the peer review process.Methods: We evaluated the harshness, constructiveness and positiveness in 596 reviews from journals with open peer review, plus 46 reviews from colleagues' anonymously reviewed manuscripts. We considered possible influencing factors, such as number of authors and seasonal trends, on the content of the review. Finally, using machine-learning we identified latent types of reviewer with differing characteristics.Results: Reviews provided during a northern-hemisphere winter were significantly harsher, suggesting a seasonal effect on language. Reviews for articles in journals with an open peer review policy were significantly less harsh than those with an anonymous review process. Further, we identified three types of reviewers: nurturing, begrudged, and blasé.Conclusion: Nurturing reviews were in a minority and our findings suggest that more widespread open peer reviewing could improve the educational value of peer review, increase the constructive criticism that encourages researchers, and reduce pride and prejudice in editorial processes.

SUBMITTER: Le Sueur H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7497287 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Pride, prejudice, and paediatrics (women paediatricians in England before 1950).

Project description:Within the literature of the Enlightenment there are voices that called for the emancipation of women, and so began a--still unfinished--struggle for equality at home and in society. The campaign for women to enter the professions started in the 19th century. Women who wished to qualify and work as doctors faced what must have seemed to those of lesser courage and ability, to be insurmountable resistance. The early women doctors of the 19th century who were forced to obtain their training on the continent--in Zurich, Bern, and Paris--were part of a political movement and transatlantic network concerned with issues of women's rights, universal suffrage, women's health and public health measures. These women who "stormed the citadel" wanted to, and did, change society as well as medicine. Opposition to women's entry into medicine was led by doctors who defended the male monopoly against the threat to their prestige and purse. They argued that a woman's place was in the home as a wife and mother. Women's bodies, intellect, and temperament were not up to the demands of studying medicine, let alone practising as doctors. These arguments did not stop, but echoed down the 20th century long after women had gained the right to qualify in medicine.

| S-EPMC2066019 | biostudies-literature

Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review.

Project description:Student misconceptions are an obstacle in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses and unless remediated may continue causing difficulties in learning as students advance in their studies. Writing-to-learn assignments (WTL) are characterized by their ability to promote in-depth conceptual learning by allowing students to explore their understanding of a topic. This study sought to determine whether and what types of misconceptions are elicited by WTL assignments and how the process of peer review and revision leads to remediation or propagation of misconceptions. We examined four WTL assignments in an introductory biology course in which students first wrote about content by applying it to a realistic scenario, then participated in a peer-review process before revising their work. Misconceptions were identified in all four assignments, with the greatest number pertaining to protein structure and function. Additionally, in certain contexts, students used scientific terminology incorrectly. Analysis of the drafts and peer-review comments generated six profiles by which misconceptions were addressed through the peer-review process. The prevalent mode of remediation arose through directed peer-review comments followed by correction during revision. It was also observed that additional misconceptions were elicited as students revised their writing in response to general peer-review suggestions.

| S-EPMC5998326 | biostudies-literature

Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

Project description:Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

| S-EPMC5633172 | biostudies-other

Supplemental file for peer review

Project description: Not available

| S-BSST1658 | biostudies-other

Individual Pride and Collective Pride: Differences Between Chinese and American Corpora.

Project description:This study investigated cross-cultural differences in individual pride and collective pride between Chinese and Americans using data from text corpora. We found higher absolute frequencies of pride items in the American corpus than in the Chinese corpus. Cross-cultural differences were found for relative frequencies of different types of pride, and some of them depended on the genre of the text corpora. For both blogs and news genres, Americans showed higher frequencies of individual pride items and lower frequencies of relational pride items than did their Chinese counterparts. Cross-cultural differences in national pride, however, depended on the genre: Chinese news genre included more national pride items than its American counterpart, but the opposite was true for the blog genre. We discuss the implications of these results in relation to the existing literature (based on surveys and laboratory-based experiments) on cultural differences in individual pride and collective pride.

| S-EPMC8170025 | biostudies-literature

Ten considerations for open peer review.

Project description:Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.

| S-EPMC6073088 | biostudies-other

Publishing peer review materials.

Project description:Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these contributions and give credit to peer reviewers. Traditionally, the peer review reports, editors letters and author responses are only shared between the small number of people in those roles prior to publication, but there is a growing interest in making some or all of these materials available. A small number of journals have been publishing peer review materials for some time, others have begun this practice more recently, and significantly more are now considering how they might begin. This article outlines the outcomes from a recent workshop among journals with experience in publishing peer review materials, in which the specific operation of these workflows, and the challenges, were discussed. Here, we provide a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seek feedback on these initial recommendations.

| S-EPMC6206614 | biostudies-literature

Predicting Ideological Prejudice.

Project description:A major shortcoming of current models of ideological prejudice is that although they can anticipate the direction of the association between participants' ideology and their prejudice against a range of target groups, they cannot predict the size of this association. I developed and tested models that can make specific size predictions for this association. A quantitative model that used the perceived ideology of the target group as the primary predictor of the ideology-prejudice relationship was developed with a representative sample of Americans ( N = 4,940) and tested against models using the perceived status of and choice to belong to the target group as predictors. In four studies (total N = 2,093), ideology-prejudice associations were estimated, and these observed estimates were compared with the models' predictions. The model that was based only on perceived ideology was the most parsimonious with the smallest errors.

| S-EPMC5466142 | biostudies-literature

Experiences of mental illness stigma, prejudice and discrimination: a review of measures.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a substantial increase in research on mental illness related stigma over the past 10 years, with many measures in use. This study aims to review current practice in the survey measurement of mental illness stigma, prejudice and discrimination experienced by people who have personal experience of mental illness. We will identify measures used, their characteristics and psychometric properties.MethodA narrative literature review of survey measures of mental illness stigma was conducted. The databases Medline, PsychInfo and the British Nursing Index were searched for the period 1990-2009.Results57 studies were included in the review. 14 survey measures of mental illness stigma were identified. Seven of the located measures addressed aspects of perceived stigma, 10 aspects of experienced stigma and 5 aspects of self-stigma. Of the identified studies, 79% used one of the measures of perceived stigma, 46% one of the measures of experienced stigma and 33% one of the measures of self-stigma. All measures presented some information on psychometric properties.ConclusionsThe review was structured by considering perceived, experienced and self stigma as separate but related constructs. It provides a resource to aid researchers in selecting the measure of mental illness stigma which is most appropriate to their purpose.

| S-EPMC2851715 | biostudies-literature

Conflict of interest in the peer review process: A survey of peer review reports.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI.Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports.ResultsWe included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples.ConclusionThe percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.

| S-EPMC10249818 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data