TY - JOUR
T1 - Peer Review Bias
T2 - A Critical Review
AU - Haffar, Samir
AU - Bazerbachi, Fateh
AU - Murad, M. Hassan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
PY - 2019/4
Y1 - 2019/4
N2 - Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Triple- and quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces “Skin in the Game” heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system.
AB - Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Triple- and quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces “Skin in the Game” heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061633258&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061633258&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
DO - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30797567
AN - SCOPUS:85061633258
SN - 0025-6196
VL - 94
SP - 670
EP - 676
JO - Mayo Clinic proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic proceedings
IS - 4
ER -