Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better? Obstet Gynecol 2019 Jun;133(6):1081-1083
Date
05/29/2019Pubmed ID
31135720DOI
10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85067051895 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 25 CitationsAbstract
Peer review is the major method used by the scientific community to evaluate manuscripts and decide what is suitable for publication. However, this process in its current design is not bulletproof and is prone to reviewer and editorial bias. Its lack of objectivity and transparency raise concerns that manuscripts might be judged based on interests irrelevant to the content itself and not on merit alone. This commentary reviews some of the most common biases that could potentially affect objective evaluation of a manuscript and proposes alternatives to the current single-blind peer review process that is being used by most scientific journals, including Obstetrics & Gynecology. By rethinking and tackling the shortcomings of the current methodology for peer review, we hope to create a discussion that will eventually lead to improving research and, ultimately, patient care.
Author List
Tvina A, Spellecy R, Palatnik AAuthors
Anna Palatnik MD Associate Professor in the Obstetrics and Gynecology department at Medical College of WisconsinRyan Spellecy PhD Assistant Provost, Director, Professor in the Institute for Health and Equity department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Alina Tvina MD Adjunct Instructor in the Obstetrics and Gynecology department at Medical College of Wisconsin
MESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
GynecologyHumans
Journal Impact Factor
Medicine
Observer Variation
Obstetrics
Peer Review, Research
