Data Sharing and Research on Peer Review: A Call to Action

While recent surveys show that most stakeholders recognise the importance of peer review to the publication process, there is a lack of systematic research on the topic. In a period of hyper-competition for resources, with perverse incentives that lead to academic capitalism and a \u201cpublish or perish\u201d mentality, the lack of robust and cumulative research on approaches, models and practices of peer review can slow down efforts towards fostering research integrity and the credibility of scholarly communication. A major challenge in studying peer review systematically is the lack of available data. While data sharing in scientific research has made relevant progress in certain fields, the lack of infrastructures to promote the sharing of peer review data among publishers, journals and academic scholars, the challenges posed by privacy and data protection legislation, and the perceived lack of incentives for publishers, learned societies and journals to share data, have all hampered efforts in this important domain. While public authorities, learned societies and publishers may face different priorities, incentives and obstacles regarding data sharing, the time has come to call to action all stakeholders who play a part in this field. In this paper, we argue that an infrastructure for data sharing is needed to stimulate independent, collaborative, public research on peer review and we suggest measures and initiatives to set up a collaborative effort towards this goal

No evidence of any systematic bias against manuscripts by women in the peer review process of 145 scholarly journals

This article examines gender bias in peer review with complete data on 145 journals in various fields of research, including about 1.7 million authors and 740,000 referees. We reconstructed three possible sources of bias, ie, the editorial selection of referees, referee recommendations, and editorial decisions, and examined all their possible relationships. In line with previous research, we found that editors were sensitive to gender homophily in that they tended to match authors and referee by gender systematically. Results showed that in general manuscripts written by women as solo authors or co-authored by women are treated even more favorably by referees and editors. This is especially so in biomedicine and health journals, whereas women were treated relatively less favorably in social science & humanities journals, ie, the field in which the ratio of female authors was the highest in our sample. Although with some caveat, our findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes in scholarly journals do not penalize manuscripts by women. However, considering the complex social nature of gender prejudices, journals should increase gender diversity among reviewers and editors as a means of correcting signals potentially biasing the perceptions of authors and referees