Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review

Samir Haffar, Fateh Bazerbachi, Mohammad H Murad

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalMayo Clinic proceedings
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Social Responsibility
PubMed
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Peer Review Bias : A Critical Review. / Haffar, Samir; Bazerbachi, Fateh; Murad, Mohammad H.

In: Mayo Clinic proceedings, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{03ad022b532b4d66a7cbf4f0a44cac2d,
title = "Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Samir Haffar and Fateh Bazerbachi and Murad, {Mohammad H}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer Review Bias

T2 - A Critical Review

AU - Haffar, Samir

AU - Bazerbachi, Fateh

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

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

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

ER -