Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2019 Jun;133(6):1081-1083.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260.

Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?

Affiliations
Editorial

Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?

Alina Tvina et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, Jacques DC, Waldner F, Mietchen D, et al. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Res 2017;6:1151.
    1. Mayden KD. Peer review: publication's gold standard. J Adv Pract Oncol 2012;3:117–22.
    1. Shatz D. Peer review a critical inquiry. Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2004.
    1. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Medical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician 2015;18:E1–14.
    1. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review: a beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ: Br Med J 1999;318:4–5.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources