Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review.

Peer review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to biases like status bias, which we explore in this paper. Merton described this bias as prominent researchers getting disproportionately great credit for their contribution, while relatively unknown researchers get disproportionately little credit [R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56-63 (1968)]. We measured the extent of this bias in the peer-review process through a preregistered field experiment. We invited more than 3,300 researchers to review a finance research paper jointly written by a prominent author (a Nobel laureate) and by a relatively unknown author (an early career research associate), varying whether reviewers saw the prominent author's name, an anonymized version of the paper, or the less-well-known author's name. We found strong evidence for the status bias: More of the invited researchers accepted to review the paper when the prominent name was shown, and while only 23% recommended "reject" when the prominent researcher was the only author shown, 48% did so when the paper was anonymized, and 65% did when the little-known author was the only author shown. Our findings complement and extend earlier results on double-anonymized vs. single-anonymized review [R. Blank, Am. Econ. Rev. 81, 1041-1067 (1991); M. A. Ucci, F. D'Antonio, V. Berghella, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM 4, 100645 (2022)].

Value of statistical life year in extreme poverty: a randomized experiment of measurement methods in rural Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: Value of a Statistical Life Year (VSLY) provides an important economic measure of an individual's trade-off between health risks and other consumption, and is a widely used policy parameter. Measuring VSLY is complex though, especially in low-income and low-literacy communities. METHODS: Using a large randomized experiment (N = 3027), we study methodological aspects of stated-preference elicitation with payment cards (price lists) in an extreme poverty context. In a 2 × 2 design, we systematically vary whether buying or selling prices are measured, crossed with the range of the payment card. RESULTS: We find substantial effects of both the pricing method and the list range on elicited VSLY. Estimates of the gross domestic product per capita multiplier for VSLY range from 3.5 to 33.5 depending on the study design. Importantly, all estimates are economically and statistically significantly larger than the current World Health Organization threshold of 3.0 for cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results inform design choice in VSLY measurements, and provide insight into the potential variability of these measurements and possibly robustness checks.

Gender Bias in the Evaluation of Teaching Materials.

Gender differences in university teaching evaluations are well established, showing less favorable assessments of female instructors. It has also been shown that these differences cannot be linked to differences in students' course performance, which would justify differences in evaluations. The less favorable assessments are thus either due to differences in aspects that do not affect student performance, but do affect their class experience (e.g., likability of voice tone), or due to evaluation biases unrelated to any actual differences in class experience. We find support for the latter mechanism when any differences between instructors are excluded by having respondents judge identical teaching materials prepared by either a male or a female instructor. In two studies, we find that female instructors receive worse ratings than male instructors from male respondents. In one study, we also find that female instructors receive higher ratings from female raters. Gender bias vanishes for non-academic subjects in our data.