RESUMEN
How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate-about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.
Asunto(s)
Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , Revisión por Pares , Masculino , Femenino , Humanos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Empirical studies on peer review bias are primarily conducted by people from privileged groups and with affiliations with the journals studied. Data access is one major barrier to conducting peer review research. Accordingly, we propose pathways to broaden access to peer review data to people from more diverse backgrounds.
Asunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Humanos , Revisión por Pares , Revisión de la Investigación por ParesRESUMEN
The AMCP Poster Abstract Program provides a forum for authors to share their research with the managed care pharmacy community. Authors submit their abstracts to AMCP, and each abstract is reviewed by a team of peer reviewers and editors. All accepted abstracts are presented as posters at AMCP's Annual and Nexus meetings. These abstracts are also available through the AMCP meeting app. This JMCP supplement publishes all abstracts that were peer reviewed and accepted for presentation at AMCP 2024. Abstracts submitted in the Student and Encore categories did not undergo peer review; therefore, these abstracts are not included in the supplement.
Asunto(s)
Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , Farmacia , Humanos , EdiciónRESUMEN
What happened when eLife decided to eliminate accept/reject decisions after peer review?
Asunto(s)
Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , Revisión por ParesRESUMEN
The peer review system has become the standard by which scientific articles are refereed. Unfortunately, even from its beginnings in the mid-1800s it has been fraught with difficulties. Potential reviewers are volunteers who may be inundated with requests to review yet these reviews take considerable time and effort. There is little motivation to complete a review causing significant delays in the publication process. There may be biases unintentionally built into the system between reviewers, authors, editors, and journals. Attempts to overcome these biases by various blinding schemes have been met with limited success. Finally, the recent advent of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to completely upend the system, for good or bad.
