What is it about?

The research that becomes part of the scientific literature goes through a process of vetting by other scientists. This process is important because it can help to identify weaknesses and improve research, but there are different places where bias can enter into peer review processes. We outline both the problems with current peer review, and the potential for improvements for more constructive and inclusive peer review.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

For ethical and practical reasons, bias in the peer review process of science is problematic. Ethically, women and people of color should not be less likely to have their work published, their grants funded, or their rank promoted because of biases in peer review that disproportionately affect them. Practically, science needs multitudes of voices, methods, expertise, and experiences. Our ability to understand the world around us and to solve problems depends on building robust evidence and explanations. A science that only allows a narrow slice of the world into our journals is limited from the start. Yet editors, reviewers, and authors can all take concrete steps toward a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.

Perspectives

This paper, and all of the work of Reviewer Zero, is a collective effort that is so much stronger because of the different perspectives involved. I have learned so much in writing this paper, and I look forward to the conversations, questions, and actions it might spark.

Amanda Diekman
Indiana University Bloomington

As a woman of color from a disadvantaged background, I have been acutely aware of how biases can affect the way that marginalized scientists are evaluated by their peers. Biases in peer review have pervasive effects, influencing not just the publication of work and the ability to get funding, but the ability to stay in a science career at all. I am so grateful for the opportunity to work with Reviewer Zero, to hopefully change the culture of peer review so that it better serves our communities.

Dr. Mariam Aly

Over the years, I have seen the field lose many valuable colleagues who could not find their place in the field. I mourn those losses, and I wish we, as a field, could have done better. The work of Reviewer Zero provides an empowering, kind, and non-judgmental message: a better form of peer review is possible. This article reflects the work of our group in the last three years

Pablo Gomez
Skidmore College

In 2020, we launched Reviewer Zero with the goal of advancing the work of early career researchers from communities that are not currently promoted by the status quo. The work of our collective, distilled into this paper, has allowed me to understand the true scope of these systemic issues, and given me hope that there are ways to change the system for the better.

Matt Goldrick
Northwestern University

As a Hong Konger and the first in my family to finish high school and speak English, navigating academia that has been predominantly US-centric, White, and English-oriented has not always been easy. This paper resonates with me both at the professional and personal level. It seeks to bring to light the issues that affect the science and scientists that are not well represented, served, and valued by our current system, and to provide some concrete directions forward to promote a more equitable and inclusive science.

Franki Y. H. Kung
Purdue University

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science., Journal of Experimental Psychology General, September 2023, American Psychological Association (APA),
DOI: 10.1037/xge0001461.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page