This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (49)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic

An Analysis of Reviewer Bias

Ann M. Link, MA

JAMA. 1998;280:246-247.

Context.— Reviewers increasingly are asked to review manuscripts from outside their own country, but whether they are more likely to recommend acceptance of such manuscripts is not known.

Objective.— To assess whether US reviewers or non-US reviewers evaluate manuscripts differently, depending on whether the manuscripts are submitted from outside the United States or from the United States.

Design and Setting.— A retrospective analysis of all original submissions received by Gastroenterology in 1995 and 1996. Reviewers ranked manuscripts in 4 decision categories: accept, provisionally accept, reject with resubmission, or reject.

Main Outcome Measure.— Ranking of papers based on nationality of authors and reviewers.

Results.— The percentage of non-US manuscripts placed in each decision category by US (n=2355) and non-US reviewers (n=1297) was nearly identical (P=.31). However, US reviewers recommended acceptance of papers submitted by US authors more often than did non-US reviewers (P=.001). Non-US reviewers ranked US papers slightly more favorably than non-US papers (P=.09), while US reviewers ranked US papers much more favorably (P=.001).

Conclusions.— Reviewers from the United States and outside the United States evaluate non-US papers similarly and evaluate papers submitted by US authors more favorably, with US reviewers having a significant preference for US papers.

From Gastroenterology, Bethesda, Md. Ms Link is now with the Journal of Immunology, Bethesda, Md.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The 100 Most Frequently Cited Articles in Ophthalmology Journals
Ohba et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:952-960.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
Ross et al.
JAMA 2006;295:1675-1680.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Euro-Americanization of Race: Alien Perspective of African Americans vis-a-vis Trivialization of Skin Color
Hall
Journal of Black Studies 2005;36:116-128.
ABSTRACT  

Did the US boycott of French products spread to include scientific output?
Begaud and Verdoux
BMJ 2004;329:1430-1431.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How Reviewer and Manuscript Characteristics Affected Editorial Decisions on 196 Major Papers
Kliewer et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004;183:1545-1550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors Influencing the Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health Research
Hartling et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:983-987.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal: [Le devis de recherche, l'originalite et la coherence generale des manuscrits soumis au Journal influencent leur acceptation ou leur rejet]
Turcotte et al.
Canadian J. Anesthesia 2004;51:549-556.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Judging the judges: the role of journal editors
Ray
QJM 2002;95:769-774.
FULL TEXT  

The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias
Opthof et al.
Cardiovasc Res 2002;56:339-346.
FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making
Olson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2825-2828.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publications on paediatric anaesthesia: a quantitative analysis of publication activity and international recognition
Brambrink et al.
Br J Anaesth 2000;85:556-562.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Which Countries Publish in Important Anesthesia and Critical Care Journals?
Boldt et al.
Anesth. Analg. 1999;88:1175-1180.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT